6000 a year for the next 30+ years on top of 300k+ now is a big nut for us to pay a criminal.
|
|
|
Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....
- Thread starter Paul
- Start date
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
If only they could put a provision in that the police union would be on the hook for the accused cops wages while they are on suspension if the cop is convicted that might accelerate the process some.
Pipe dream tho.
Edit. That would be more likely to insure that no cop is ever convicted.
Mixed verdict for 3 Memphis officers convicted in Tyre Nichols' fatal beating
Three former Memphis police officers were convicted Thursday in the 2023 fatal beating of Tyre Nichols, but were acquitted of the harshest charges they faced for a death that sparked national protests and calls for broad changes in policing.
3 cops convicted in federal court for the beating death of Tyre Nichols. 2 other cops testified agains the 3.
All 5 cops still face murder charges in state court.
The video of the shooting wa shown in court.. here's link to a censored version..
Disturbing video shows District Judge Kevin Mullins killed inside a Kentucky courthouse
A Kentucky sheriff has been charged in the murder of District Judge Kevin Mullins after shooting him at his courthouse office.
www.courier-journal.com
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I disagree. If someone in a position of trust is criminally charged, they should be suspended without pay. Just like the average Joe.
Cops game the system when they know they will be convicted, they draw out the justice system for long periods to collect and build pensions.
A quick run is 3 years, many go longer. 3 year delay enriches the criminal cop by more than $400k.
I’m ok with backpay upon acquittals.
Normal people get fired without the need for a criminal conviction, even for things outside of working hours. So lets say for example, Joe Public was accused of steeling from work. Well the company will have an investigation and if they feel they have enough evidence Joe Public gets fired. Assault at work, same deal. Sexual BS, same deal. Incompetence, intoxication...., etc...... Sure they can sue and maybe they win and get their job back and/or a couple of years of pay, in some rare cases more. I don't know any private sector company that will pay until a criminal conviction...
SO.... while it is not totally apples to apples, oranges are still fruit. Yes, the police need to be protected from baseless accusations. The public coffers also need to be protected...
SO.... while it is not totally apples to apples, oranges are still fruit. Yes, the police need to be protected from baseless accusations. The public coffers also need to be protected...
Gaoler
Well-known member
Yeah, but what about the whole innocent until proven guilty thing..?
Should we throw that away too for everyone just to be fair?
Think of the scenario where there's an accusation, subject is suspended without pay, after 3 years subject is cleared.
Over that three years subject loses his house, car, MOTORCYCLE and suffers gawd knows what stress.
What then?
I've seen it dozens of times... going through one right now that is total bs.
It's appropriate the subjects be taken off duty pending, but you want to strip them of their income without due process?
That's a slippery slope
I'm not defending anyone here, just saying the system needs to be fair and reasonable.
The problem is the time it takes. It's one thing for a guilty outcome to take three years to be realized. Imagine sitting at home, career stalled knowing your not guilty of any wrong doing waiting three years to be exonerated?
Mad Mike
Well-known member
That’s outside employment law. The bar for employment dismissal is far lower
Pay him back. Just like the fellow who is wrongly accused at the office. Thing is, the bar is high for charging cops, they are almost always convicted.
So what if that happened to me, who is not a cop?
I’d be with you if most cops were acquitted . They are not, almost all are convicted, retire or quit after collecting $400k or more. The ones not acquitted are usually off on technicalities that are engineered by the blue line.
Here's an idea.. Let the union decide. If the union looks at the charges and decides the suspended cop should be paid.. the union can pay them until the outcome of the case.. If found not guilty then the service reimburses the union.. if the cop is found guilty.. no reimbursement.
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
Seen plenty of cases where they dragged out the process long enough to launch a successful charter challenge.
Which isn't supposed to happen if the delay is attributable to the accused but it has happened several times, in high profile cases.
I think he was saying that blue drags their feet (or encourages the prosecutor to) to ensure a challenge is possible. That way the delay is not attributable to the accused. It's hard to get convictions as a prosecutor if blue decides you are on another team.
One potential problem is the loss of boots on the ground if a large number of false accusations come up. If 50 motorcycle hoodlums can blockade the DVP a similar anti police group can get many dozens of cops on some form of suspension. Add the costs of O/T for other officers, investigations, trials etc and budgets tank. Moral and trust goes from bad to worse.
We can talk punishment for the false accusers but our leaders (Joke) fail miserably in leading or handling reality and are useless in a fight.
The force can help by stopping the tough guy bully crap and try to get people to have faith in them again.
wonderings
Well-known member
Would that not be a union thing? Their contracts have all sorts of protections no regular non government worker has.
I am on the fence about suspending their pay until proven guilty simply on the chance that they are found innocent. By not getting their regular pay cheque they could lose their house by missing payments, among other things. Getting backpay after losing your house is not really helpful. I am all for harder punishment for people in power, but I think there should be an element of innocent till proven guilty taken into account. I would totally be on board with paying back any money earned while under investigation or under suspension when proven guilty.
Like every other employer, they should evaluate whether the employee should be terminated based on the merits of the case. The criminal trial/conviction should be an entirely separate issue. The only time the criminal trial should matter is if the employer decided that they should remain an employee and they subsequently get a criminal conviction that should trigger a review of how they decided to keep a criminal employed.
Then there was David Russell Williams, CFB Trenton Base Commander and a Canadian serial rapist, murderer and former colonel in the Royal Canadian Air Force. He is currently serving a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 25 years for two murders, committed in November 2009 and January 2010.
It appears he transferred all his property to his wife's name when he knew he was on the short list to avoid a civil suit.
If a cop is on paid leave his property needs a lien placed on it so in the event of a guilty verdict the money isn't offshore. We pay $400,000 while he goes fishing but we get it back if found guilty. The longer the case drags out the bigger the lien.
In essence a guilty cop realizes nothing over the period. The sooner he pleads guilty the sooner he can get a different job and start earning again.
Regarding the Williams case, that didn't fly. Nor should such an obvious attempt to thwart justice stand. Instead, it got Williams's wife dragged deeper into everything.
|
|
|
|
|