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.

 

Arizona Legislature Passes Bill That Keeps Cops’ Names Secret After They Shoot Civilians

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Addictinginfo.or g


If you want to see one of the best examples of George Orwell’s 1984, look no further than Arizona. The state’s Republican-led legislature has just passed SB 1445, a bill that seeks to protect the identities of police officers who shoot and kill civilians from public knowledge for up to 60 days. Keeping the identities of a government agents who kill a secret? That doesn’t sound fascist at all!

Apparently they are afraid of roaming mobs of citizens looking for justice if one of their officers shoots someone.

Even if the officer who perpetrates the shooting has a disciplinary record or faces disciplinary action as a result of the shooting, their name will not be released for 60 days.

The bill was sponsored by 12 legislators, eleven Republican and one Democrat. It passed the Senate 20-8 with 5 Democrats voting in favor and the House 44-13 with 12 Democrats voting in favor. It now awaits the signature of Governor Doug Ducey.


Even protecting the names of police who violate policy when it happened??!?!!

Sigh, so much for transparency, I hope other states do not follow.




edit on 26-3-2015 by Elton because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   
W....T....F



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I agree with Autorico there WTF..are they planning on shooting civilians or something ?.......

This kinds of bills that get passed are really disturbing......



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   

edit on 26-3-2015 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: double



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

With the rampant anti-cop culture coming to fruition nationally this makes sense.

Do cops not have the right to a jury of their peers?

Just look at what happened with Darren Wilson, even Eric Holder couldn't get any charges that would stick, yet thousands were calling for his death.

ETA: the anti cop people who make this law necessary are now the ones bashing it.. irony

edit on 26-3-2015 by doompornjunkie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Well maybe this will save lives in the meantime.




posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: doompornjunkie

Those who enforce the law should be held to the HIGHEST standards, IMO.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: doompornjunkie

Those who enforce the law should be held to the HIGHEST standards, IMO.


So being subjected to blood thirsty mobs is HIGH standard?



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Autorico

That doesn't mean you throw them out to the wolves against an ignorant populace that is so prejudiced they can't see right from wrong.

Someone could beat a cop to within a half inch of his life and if he managed to draw his weapon and kill his attacker, people would still call for his death.

I agree with not releasing the names for 60 days. This gives the officer and their family time to prepare for a completely stupid general public.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
What's really interesting is I was having a discussion today about when places don't want to share names. The usual way of getting names is to call the police because it will be on the police report. If the police respond there's a report.

There's also GPS of police cars and people listening to police scanners. This bill doesn't seem relavant in today's world.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: doompornjunkie

Sorry, I should have made it a reply to the thread in general. And no, I don't think they should be subjected to angry mobs, any more than criminals should. I am not anti-police, just anti-corrupt police.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Arizona has a website where they publish names and mugshots of people convicted of NO crime. If they truly wish to protect the identities of people from a rush to judgement then why would this bill only extend to law enforcement?



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

I don't like this but not for the reason you would think. When an officer's name is released after a questionable death, they are in the public eye and have a small amount of protection and sometimes (not as much as we would like) even justice is served.

If they were "hidden" from the public, somebody's going to find out who they are, anyway. And when that happens, with even less of the story than we normally have, mob rule will truly occur. That's never a good thing.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: FraggleRock

Good point, I was not aware of this.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: FraggleRock

Good point, but that would be considered anti- freedom of the press (anti-first amendment) I think.

Which is why making the police a protected class seems unusual and misguided to me.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: doompornjunkie
Do cops not have the right to a jury of their peers?

Just look at what happened with Darren Wilson, even Eric Holder couldn't get any charges that would stick, yet thousands were calling for his death.

ETA: the anti cop people who make this law necessary are now the ones bashing it.. irony


Frequently on ATS we see stories where police are way out of line and are not held accountable much less having charges pressed resulting in a jury trial.

If police were held more accountable in those cases then I suspect the public would not be quite so reactionary in the ones' where the officers were following sane and reasonable procedures that resulted in death of a suspect.


Hey, it's a Catch-22...



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Officer's names in question are not published too quickly anyway for the most part. Sounds like it's more to offer them protection so later on it's easier to get a slap on the hand as usual.
edit on 26-3-2015 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: doompornjunkie

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: doompornjunkie

Those who enforce the law should be held to the HIGHEST standards, IMO.


So being subjected to blood thirsty mobs is HIGH standard?





And what about the citizens whom are subjected to blood thirsty mobs of poilce ??...

The police should be held to a higher standard and should not behave like this ....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

I would say one better, you don't release the name unless found guilty by a jury of his/her peers. I mean here's the thing, no matter which side people take (I prefer neither) you have to maintain the constitution, even if you think a wrong has been committed (and they often are) by a police person, unless of course you want to return to an era of torches and pitchforks, and turning in your neighbors.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

Sounds like a sheriff joe idea to me



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join