True enough. And it will probably be true in any system of law and law enforcement in a country this large. But there are degrees of outrageousness, and NY, NJ, Chicago, Cali, have crossed that line for me. If I suffer an unconstitutional search or arrest or whathaveyou, I at least have the chance to raise heck about it later. If am prevented from defending myself with anything more effective than a crayon, I very well may not have a "later."seamusTX wrote: Police officers in Texas enforce laws that I find unconstitutional, but no one here cares much.
- Jim
Search found 2 matches
Return to “NY: Not easy to be a cop”
- Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:58 am
- Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
- Topic: NY: Not easy to be a cop
- Replies: 23
- Views: 3218
Re: NY: Not easy to be a cop
- Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:59 pm
- Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
- Topic: NY: Not easy to be a cop
- Replies: 23
- Views: 3218
Re: NY: Not easy to be a cop
Some thoughts.
Double jeopardy: srothstein has a point, in that the decisions of the two internal police investigations feels wrong. As a strictly theoretical/logical analysis I can see the difference between saying, "the tactics you used were within guidelines, but you could have used different tactics," but in real life this is a confict, especially when you publicly honored the officers for what they did, then turn around and punish them for it. It does smell of legal butt covering by the city in the face of the lawsuit, especially with the long gap between the two decisions and the timeline of lawsuit and second decision.
As for legal double jeopardy; no, as seamus said, the criminal realm and the department administrative realm are different spheres (and undoubtedly have different standards). Just like the civil and criminal realms are different (see Simpson, O.J.).
In fact, had the facts been somewhat different, the officers could have been prosecuted by both the State of New York and the Federal government (see case of King, Rodney). When I was on active duty, one of our military law courses pointed out that the UCMJ is yet a third realm, and we could be prosecuted under it as well as state and federal law without violating the double jeopardy cause of the Constitution. As a practical matter this doesn't happen (or not much anyway), but I was told it was possible.
As far as dealing with emotionally disturbed persons: a guy with a weapon is a guy with a weapon. If he imediately threatens an officer's (or my) life or limb, the fact that he is unstable is not likely to lessen the severity of the officer's wounds. Frankly, it seems to me that knowing one is dealing with an EDP would heighten the liklihood of a bad outcome -- it's not like one is dealing with a rational actor who can properly weigh consequences (not that most violent felons seem to be able to do that anyway).
And finally, I have to say my sympathy for the officers is severely mitigated by the fact that had I shot some some nut to keep him from beating me to death with a chair in a NY City parking lot, those same officers would have arrested me in a heartbeat for various felonies and testified against me to put me in a NY prison for defending myself. They signed up to enforce the law of a corrupt state that oppresses and criminalizes one of the most basic, if not THE basic human right, so the fact that they are now getting their knickers ripped by the same system does not overly depress me.
Double jeopardy: srothstein has a point, in that the decisions of the two internal police investigations feels wrong. As a strictly theoretical/logical analysis I can see the difference between saying, "the tactics you used were within guidelines, but you could have used different tactics," but in real life this is a confict, especially when you publicly honored the officers for what they did, then turn around and punish them for it. It does smell of legal butt covering by the city in the face of the lawsuit, especially with the long gap between the two decisions and the timeline of lawsuit and second decision.
As for legal double jeopardy; no, as seamus said, the criminal realm and the department administrative realm are different spheres (and undoubtedly have different standards). Just like the civil and criminal realms are different (see Simpson, O.J.).
In fact, had the facts been somewhat different, the officers could have been prosecuted by both the State of New York and the Federal government (see case of King, Rodney). When I was on active duty, one of our military law courses pointed out that the UCMJ is yet a third realm, and we could be prosecuted under it as well as state and federal law without violating the double jeopardy cause of the Constitution. As a practical matter this doesn't happen (or not much anyway), but I was told it was possible.
As far as dealing with emotionally disturbed persons: a guy with a weapon is a guy with a weapon. If he imediately threatens an officer's (or my) life or limb, the fact that he is unstable is not likely to lessen the severity of the officer's wounds. Frankly, it seems to me that knowing one is dealing with an EDP would heighten the liklihood of a bad outcome -- it's not like one is dealing with a rational actor who can properly weigh consequences (not that most violent felons seem to be able to do that anyway).
And finally, I have to say my sympathy for the officers is severely mitigated by the fact that had I shot some some nut to keep him from beating me to death with a chair in a NY City parking lot, those same officers would have arrested me in a heartbeat for various felonies and testified against me to put me in a NY prison for defending myself. They signed up to enforce the law of a corrupt state that oppresses and criminalizes one of the most basic, if not THE basic human right, so the fact that they are now getting their knickers ripped by the same system does not overly depress me.