Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cop Who Punched Handcuffed Woman in Face Reinstated Thanks to Police Bill of Rights

page: 1
12

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Even the Mayor and Police Chief supported the action of removing this scum from the force.

Police have a Bill of Rights that is enforced and the people have no rights whatsoever is the message here.

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.

fromthetrenchesworldreport.com...
After watching the vid, ask yourself if this is excessive force. I know my answer.

And to include another quote:

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.

So to sum all this up, a cop can beat an unarmed, handcuffed woman in the face, get fired promptly from the Mayor and his boss...and then be reinstated by the Union?

What message does this send to all cops? 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?

I just don't get this at all.

edit on 9-12-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

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.


I believe we all know what happened and you're correct.

I just don't understand how the Mayor and Police Chief have no authority whatsoever.

Peace



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11


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?


 


Unions always start out with the best of intentions. Unions always degrade into the worst things imaginable (if you let them.)

I wonder if this officer would want his daughter handled this way if she was non-compliant?




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
school used to be harder than this!




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Hmm, I didnt know there was a bill of rights specifically for cops.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nephalim
reply to post by jude11
 


Hmm, I didnt know there was a bill of rights specifically for cops.


Neither did I but there it is.

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.

reason.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Yet another cop with "anger management" issues....it could have been worse.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

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



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The only justice this lady can get now is if she sues the state.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
If they find that pig on a spit, roasting over a fire, I will not feel bad.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
If they find that pig on a spit, roasting over a fire, I will not feel bad.


I haven't felt bad about a cop being killed either in the line of duty or by accident in a very long time. I wonder why myself and a lot of others feel the same way?



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

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.


No, I came off as rude and for that I apologize.

Peace



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Wow, this guy doesn't hold back does he? Just another case of stupidity outwitting justice. You never know though, next time he starts beating on someone it could be a member of the unions family. Wouldn't that be justice.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Perfect example of why we need unions in every state! Yes, unions are good and definitely protect their members from unfair business practices! They assist to provide benefits to their members, and help to make sure that their members are treated fairly.

Yay, unions!



/TOA





new topics

top topics



 
12

log in

join