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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Pennsylvania Law Bans Naming Police Officers Involved in Shootings For 30 Days

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I wonder what has changed that they need to change the time frame for giving out the names of the officer/s involved? Is this to calm the crowds? Seems like it would do the opposite.


Pennsylvania lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a new bill last week—heavily backed by state and national police unions, including the Fraternal Order of Police—which would forbid the public release of the names of officers involved in shootings of civilians for 30 days, or until an internal police investigation is completed. The penalty for violating the government-wide gag order would be a second misdemeanor charge, however, exemptions would be made for the Attorney General and district attorney’s offices.
The bill sailed through Pennsylvania’s House 151-32 and 39-9 in the Senate, with a significant amount of Philadelphia-area lawmakers voting against it, according to Philly.com. Gov. Tom Wolf (D) still needs to sign the bill to make it law, but he has made no public indication of whether or not he will do so.


Stupid politicians, have fun when the rioting groups show up at the police stations and burn them down. This is a very hard situation to solve. If a person is shot and meets the rioters criteria then the riot is on, even if the shooting was "good".
Maybe concentrate on trust, if that is even possible. I wish I had an answer, anybody got ideas?





Last year, then-Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey changed the department’s long-standing policy of releasing officers’ names whenever it felt it was appropriate to limiting the delay to a maximum of 72 hours. Ramsey was quoted by NPR as saying, “I don’t think you can shoot someone and expect to remain anonymous…and I do think that we have a responsibility as a police agency that work[s] for the people to provide that information, unless there are some extenuating circumstances.”Text

Looks like the politicians know better than the police commissioner, I would imagine he knows what happens if the names are hidden to protect the public servants. This is a huge mess that seems to be getting messier.

wearechange.org...
edit on 1-11-2016 by seasonal because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
It sort of makes sense- if we lived in a world where the law actually applied to police.
It gives them a window of opportunity for the truth to come out, and keeps the masses from burning down the home (and family) of the offending officer before an investigation can prove if he was in the wrong or not.

Of course, much like politics, what it will be in reality is a time period to skew the facts and change the details- and will likely backfire. Instead of knowing the officer to be targeted, they'll all be suspect- and the mobs will take on their own justice system.

Glad I don't live anywhere near that place...



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

How do you know a cop is lying to you?

They're talking.




posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
They used to say names have been changed to protect the innocent... not naming names protects the guilty.

Thirty days? Todays attention span is about 8 seconds.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr



Thirty days? Todays attention span is about 8 seconds.

Good point.
Maybe the politicians hope all the rioters that will show up in force at the police station will go home, but they won't. But what will happen is either rioters get shot some die but most go home or rioters burn police station down and national guard gets called.
Maybe the hope is for rioters get shot? Why else make this law.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal


Why else make this law.

So they don't have to take leave without pay. They can go right on working during the 'investigation' that will result in their being reinstated anyway.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Wow, from where I stand, that is very penny wise and dollar foolish. Just the property damage will be huge.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Oh this new law should go over very nicely! Damned if you do and damned if you dont.
edit on 1-11-2016 by 4N0M4LY because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: intrptr

Wow, from where I stand, that is very penny wise and dollar foolish. Just the property damage will be huge.


The damage to human beings is the real issue.The last vestiges of culpability swept away. Now they have an anonymous guarantee, even if their judgement or intentions aren't sound.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

very true



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   
This sounds very shady, rioters will burn their cities down with this law. Pennsylvania lawmakers are enabling bad cops back on the streets for 30 more days.... and that could lead to more murder and abuse.




posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I would suppose the paid vacations for the accused are getting too expensive.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

This is a tricky one.

I must state, before I get to the thrust of my post, that my position on police shootings of civilians, is that there have been far too many incidents of fleeing, unarmed, and even cuffed suspects being shot dead, while representing zero threat. There have been too many cases where illegal searches turned into homicides. There have been too many incidents where the wrongdoing was clearly that of the police, and those need to be prevented with absolute fastidiousness.

However, there have also been a great many cases where armed suspects were shot, and certain movements decided to protest the issue, despite the fact that the deceased party was posing an ACTUAL threat to the life and limb of officers, if not the public as well. While I have EXTREME suspicions about the motivations of the constabulary in many things that they do, including going to war with pipeline protestors of First Nations extraction currently, I also believe that there ARE times when a suspect needs to be taken out to protect innocent lives.

Furthermore, I believe that it is highly damaging to the cause of ensuring that all police involved shootings are legitimate, to protest even those shootings that are clearly legitimate, as if they are part of a systemic issue with policing. They are not, and yet they are held up by certain factions, as part of the wider picture.

There was a case of a pest control man, who, while drunk, was seen "brandishing" his varmint gun, a little .22 thing. Sure, could do someone some damage, but its not an "assault rifle" or a "sniper rifle". The police rocked up to the motel he was in, they removed the weapon from him, cuffed him, placed him on the ground with his hands cuffed behing him, and by some means his shorts rode down over his bare bottom. He only sought dignity, in reaching for his waistband, his clearly empty waistband. He made it clear to the officers what he was going to do. That did not stop one of the officers from putting a few 5.56 rounds into his body, while he lay there, shorts half dropped. The man died trying to pull up his shorts.

As far as I am aware the policeman did receive some sort of discipline, may even have had charges bought up against him. In cases like that, the accused party does not deserve, nor should they receive ANY special protection, more than would a regular citizen.

BUT, in cases where a justified shooting took place, the police and the forensics services should be given time to work out the exact circumstances of the case, in order that it be presented correctly and unambiguously to the people, and to prevent officers being targeted by unwarranted responses from a hair trigger public. Perhaps if there was not just as much outrage expressed after "good shootings" as bad ones, this entire thing would never have come up. But the fact is there HAVE been lots of examples of "good" shootings, causing public outcry equal to, and in some cases greater than in the initial stages, those shootings we have all heard about where there was no reasonable justification for discharging a weapon.

The subject of officer involved shootings only becomes harder to opine or commentate upon, when there are not clear lines established in the public consciousness, between a man of any colour being shot while he is in commission of an armed offence, and a person of any colour being shot in the back while running away from a psychopath with a badge. I have established clear lines for myself and my opinion on the matter, but if we are not all signing from the same hymn sheet, then discussing the very real problem of unjustifiable shootings, becomes a messy nonsense absent reason, fact, or anything properly identifiable as thought.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

The truth of the matter is when you cry wolf, about a suspect that is clearly shot with cause and it is a clean shooting, you weaken your credibility. And you are right the "cause" takes a hit.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
OK, all kidding (sort of) aside...

I recently had an encounter with a guy I grew up with who joined the police department here. He's a little over a year from retirement. My car had overheated and I had pulled off on a field road to analyze what was wrong and try to figure out how to get it home. While I was on the phone with Verizon Hum, a police SUV pulled up. "Oh, great," I thought, "am I about to get hassled?" Nope, the guy had recognized me and stopped to help. When he called me by name, I was understandably relieved.

The fix was to get water in the old gal, so he drove me to my place to get some. On the way, we talked. He pretty much verified, from a police point of view, what I had theorized all along: The new generation of cops are scared and inept. He has trained several, and he just kept talking about the cops who joined the force and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn while standing inside it, the ones who were terrified every time they had to stop someone, the ones who had no idea what they could and couldn't do under the law, and on and on.

The situation is this: the cops joining the force today are untrained, unprepared, and unable to handle the stress of the job. My friend blames society in general, and I tend to agree. Kids grow up today isolated from real conflict and coddled whenever they're afraid. In my day, we learned to handle our own problems, and wound up learning how to not get into problems as a matter of survival. We learned when you are confronted, the last thing you do is show fear, even if you're shaking in your boots inside. You keep your eyes open and know what's going on around you. You treat people with respect as long as you can, and use violence only if there's no other way... because that only guarantees a fight. Kids today grew up with authority constantly enacting and enforcing rules to make sure no one got their feelings hurt, and they were coddled whenever something didn't go just their way. Now, as adults, they have no idea how to handle themselves in dangerous circumstances, and they're terrified because of it.

That's in a small town in Alabama, well removed from the more 'progressive' areas of society. If that has reached us, then how much worse is it in large cities?

So we have police over-reacting and then using violence out of fear to escalate things. We have police just itching for a fight because they don't know how to approach another human without being... dare I say it?... Billy-Bob Bad-Ass. The result is abuse of their power, and the hierarchy in the police departments try to look the other way when possible because it's expensive and difficult to find a replacement. Better to give out a paid vacation, sweep whatever you can under the rug, and manipulate information to minimize consequences on what's left. This law is necessary to minimize consequences, because too many people are getting fed up.

This is the world we live in. On the surface kinder, gentler, more diverse... underneath a boiling pit of anger, fear, and hatred. Sort of reminiscent of a dormant volcano just before it erupts.

I think I prefer the ugly side of society in the open, where I can see it.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I'm actually in favor of this type of legislation--there have been way too many times that officer-involved shooting have been shown to be justified, but by the time that happens, the officer and his/her family have been convicted in the court of public opinion to the point of basically ruining their lives.

I'm all for transparency, but people in said court of P.O. rely way too heavily on emotion and way too leniently on facts. A 30-day cooling-off period would not be a terrible thing, and it would allow a trial, if that were to happen, to find a jury much more easily.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You mean found justified after they investigated themselves, right?
If you committed crimes and were allowed to investigate yourself -
just curious - how many times would you turn up "justified"?




posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: MagicCow

Ahhh we go back to the trust thingy. You are right, their needs to be trust that the police are investigating and prosecuting and wrong doers.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: MagicCow

Not just internal investigations, but external investigations, and grand juries, and full-on trials that end in a finding of Not Guilty.

I get your point, though, and I do wish that police departments couldn't investigate themselves--I think the states should have a special unit designated to this specific task. Impartiality will never be absolute, but anything is better than them investigating themselves.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

There should be citizen panels made of professional respected
individuals just like in the military.
All body cams should be working and them being "magically" malfunctioning
during an officer involved shooting should result in that officers immediate termination
and termination of his ability to be an officer ANYWHERE.
Too often officers just move from one county to the next until they
can be rehired by their original department.
The police want us as citizens to be accountable and the courts sure will make sure you are.
It's time that those whom should be leading by example were held to the same standards.

OP - Sorry for falling away from your original target.
Mods - I understand if you must remove to prevent thread drift.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join