It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Milwaukee Cop Richard Schoen was fired in May of this year after his superiors saw a dashboard-camera video that shows Schoen climbing into the backseat of his cruiser to repeatedly punch a handcuffed woman in the face. He’s now getting his job back despite the objections of Milwaukee’s police chief and mayor.
Upon arriving at the station, Schoen tried to pull Tracy out of the backseat of his cruiser by her shirt. When Tracy refused to move, Schoen went around to the other side of the car, climbed into the backseat, and began punching Tracy in the face. Schoen then dragged her out of the backseat of his cruiser by her hair.
If you live in Milwaukee, the comission’s verdict says you aren’t safe from your own police department. If you work for the Milwaukee PD, this verdict says not only that you are exempt from internal rules for handling suspects, but also that your boss–the chief of police–is impotent, and that the rule of law does not apply to you.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jude11
It's called a brotherhood. You never turn on a brother. Never.
Not that I agree, but that's what happened.
Do what you want and the Union will have your back because they are more powerful than the mayor AND Police Chief combined. Who said the Police State isn't gaining ground?
Originally posted by Nephalim
reply to post by jude11
Hmm, I didnt know there was a bill of rights specifically for cops.
Benevolent associations in Maryland successfully pushed for the passage of a police bill of rights in 1972; Florida, Rhode Island, Virginia, New Mexico, and California followed suit before the 70s were over. The 1980s, 90s, and 2000s saw still more states adopt police bill of rights at the behest of police unions.
Originally posted by TheOtter
Many states have their own version of LEOBR. It is intended to provide a uniform code of discipline across departments and the ranks throuout a given state.
Originally posted by jude11
Originally posted by TheOtter
Many states have their own version of LEOBR. It is intended to provide a uniform code of discipline across departments and the ranks throuout a given state.
You forgot to mention protecting the police officers from deserved justice.
Peace
Originally posted by TheOtter
Originally posted by jude11
Originally posted by TheOtter
Many states have their own version of LEOBR. It is intended to provide a uniform code of discipline across departments and the ranks throuout a given state.
You forgot to mention protecting the police officers from deserved justice.
Peace
That is incorrect.
The legislative intent is outline in my original post. What you have described may be an unintented consequence, but is not the intent of the document.
Originally posted by jude11
Originally posted by TheOtter
Originally posted by jude11
Originally posted by TheOtter
Many states have their own version of LEOBR. It is intended to provide a uniform code of discipline across departments and the ranks throuout a given state.
You forgot to mention protecting the police officers from deserved justice.
Peace
That is incorrect.
The legislative intent is outline in my original post. What you have described may be an unintented consequence, but is not the intent of the document.
I have described what is a fact in the OP. Please don't embarrass yourself by stating one thing and not providing fact. It truly is beneath ATS.
Originally posted by TKDRL
If they find that pig on a spit, roasting over a fire, I will not feel bad.
Originally posted by TheOtter
Originally posted by jude11
Originally posted by TheOtter
Originally posted by jude11
Originally posted by TheOtter
Many states have their own version of LEOBR. It is intended to provide a uniform code of discipline across departments and the ranks throuout a given state.
You forgot to mention protecting the police officers from deserved justice.
Peace
That is incorrect.
The legislative intent is outline in my original post. What you have described may be an unintented consequence, but is not the intent of the document.
I have described what is a fact in the OP. Please don't embarrass yourself by stating one thing and not providing fact. It truly is beneath ATS.
You're right. I may not have a bajillion posts as you do, but I back my statements up. You can read my five total posts and see. I didn't in this case. I was trying to get in an idea on my breaks at work. I'll see if I can work up something more detailed, maybe not. May be time to let this one go.
Never embarrassed - life's too short. Peace. Otter.