this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024
166 points (98.8% liked)

politics

18651 readers
4158 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 55 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This is the same reason police should not have a union. They already have a monopoly on use of force, for which they are immune from the repercussions.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

Cops don't have unions. They have associations stretching the definition of the word "benevolent" long past breaking.

A police benevolent association is like a giraffe pescetarian club.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Last year, a woman in Albany, N.Y., filed a complaint with the civilian board responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct by the city’s police: She believed officers had not thoroughly investigated her claim that the father of her 3-year-old daughter had sexually assaulted the girl.

But when the board asked the Albany Police Department for a copy of the case file and issued subpoenas to compel the investigators to answer questions, the police refused to cooperate. Releasing investigative files, they argued, could endanger victims, according to internal emails.

Eric Hawkins, the police chief, also told the board that he would not allow officers or detectives to cooperate with any of the panel’s investigations because forcing officers to respond to subpoenas would violate the police union’s contract, according to a lawsuit the board filed against the Police Department.

The resistance to the Albany board’s demands is emblematic of the struggles such panels continue to face across the United States, decades after being created to increase police accountability.

JFC already! Then give the civilian oversight committees a mouthful of big sharp teeth so they can force these assholes to be accountable to anyone but themselves!!!

F U CK sakes already!

ACAB x 10,000

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well, the board doesn't have any actual power? That seems flawed, if the board is supposed to hold the police accountable, I see no way that's possible without some power. Like removing the asshole police chief that thinks his department is above being held accountable.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

My own city's oversight board (that includes civilians) is essentiallly the same - no bite and little bark.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Cops spooked the depth of their perfidious conduct will be revealed; City spooked by thoughts of lawsuits; Civilian review boards will swing in the wind.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

and some of the cops bad actions are directed by rich/powerful people with dirty laundry.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The suit, filed in state court, accuses the city, the department and Chief Hawkins of undermining the board’s ability to review cases independently, including by repeatedly ignoring “lawfully issued” subpoenas to interview officers.

Stephen J. Rehfuss, a lawyer for the Albany Police Benevolent Association, filed a motion asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed, arguing that the board was requiring officers to submit to interviews even though it did not have the power to protect them from prosecution.

“Imagine being a doctor and being evaluated on the conduct of your care by someone who has no idea what your own community standard might be,” State Representative Daniel Alvarez, a Republican, told his colleagues during debate on the bill.

But a police oversight board without investigative powers is largely ineffective, said Ajenai Clemmons, an assistant professor of public policy in the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver.

More than 70 percent of Albany voters approved the 2021 referendum that expanded the review panel’s investigative authority by empowering the board to demand case files and subpoena officers.

The board hired an outside company that recruits retired police officers to investigate misconduct accusations, and the firm began examining several cases, including the one involving the 3-year-old girl.


The original article contains 1,506 words, the summary contains 209 words. Saved 86%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!