Why Firing a Bad Cop Is Damn Near Impossible

Mods I looked for this but didn't find it, if this thread already exists, please delete, thank you.

I was watching yet another video over at "the other site" of yet another thug cop beating a cuffed man while on the ground. I went looking for "why" this continues to happen, nothing so esoteric as the human condition, or absolute power corrupt absolutely; not even qualified immunity, but the origins of it all.

While the article itself is not an end all or be all solution, I do believe it's a step in the right direction, a step previously unknown to me & hopefully to you, otherwise this whole thing is redundant.

Source

In March 2012, Krawetz was convicted of felony battery despite his claim that he kicked Levesque in "self defense." The 10-year sentence he received was immediately suspended, and Krawetz was ordered to attend anger management classes. But he wasn't fired from the Lincoln Police Department. Under Rhode Island law, the fate of Krawetz's job as a cop rested not with a criminal court, or even his commanding officer, but in the hands of a three-person panel composed of fellow police officers—one of whom Krawetz would get to choose. That panel would conduct the investigation into Krawetz's behavior, oversee a cross-examination, and judge whether Krawetz could keep his job. The entire incident, in other words, would be kept in the family.

So the deck is stacked right from the get go, do most know that? Oh sure, most know that internal affairs=mulligan, aka nothing being done, but the point i believe is even worse than most ppl believe, which is the system, regarding bad cops, was DESIGNED not to protect ppl from bad/rogue cops, but to protect cops.

How specifically? Here's how.

thanks to model legislation written and lobbied for by well-funded police unions. That piece of legislation is called the "law enforcement bill of rights," and its sole purpose is to shield cops from the laws they're paid to enforce. The inspiration for this legislation and its similarly named cousins across the country is the Police Officers’ Bill of Rights, introduced in 1971 by New York Rep. Mario Biaggi (D), at the behest of the Police Benevolent Association.

So that's the start of it, now here's the process that "alleged" rogue & bad cops get that most citizens do not.

The rights created by these bills differ from state to state, but here's how a typical police misconduct investigation works in states that have a law enforcement bill of rights in place: A complaint is filed against an officer by a member of the public or a fellow officer. Police department leadership reviews the complaint and decides whether to investigate. If the department decides to pursue the complaint, it must inform the officer and his union. That's where the special treatment begins, but it doesn't end there. Unlike a member of the public, the officer gets a "cooling off" period before he has to respond to any questions. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is privy to the names of his complainants and their testimony against him before he is ever interrogated. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is to be interrogated "at a reasonable hour," with a union member present. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can only be questioned by one person during his interrogation. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can be interrogated only "for reasonable periods," which "shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary." Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation cannot be "threatened with disciplinary action" at any point during his interrogation. If he is threatened with punishment, whatever he says following the threat cannot be used against him. What happens after the interrogation again varies from state to state. But under nearly every law enforcement bill of rights, the following additional privileges are granted to officers: Their departments cannot publicly acknowledge that the officer is under investigation; if the officer is cleared of wrongdoing or the charges are dropped, the department may not publicly acknowledge that the investigation ever took place, or reveal the nature of the complaint. The officer cannot be questioned or investigated by "non-government agents," which means no civilian review boards. If the officer is suspended as a result of the investigation, he must continue to receive full pay and benefits until his case is resolved. In most states, the charging department must subsidize the accused officer's legal defense. A violation of any of the above rights can result in dismissal—not of the officer, but of the charges against him. Because of these special due process privileges, there's little incentive for police departments to discipline officers. In most cases, it's more financially prudent to let a District Attorney or outside law enforcement agency do the heavy lifting, and then fire the officer if he's convicted. This is the only "easy" way, under police bills of rights, for departments to get rid of bad cops--which essentially means the only way to get rid of bad cops is if some other law enforcement agency can make a felony charge stick. This is the biggest problem with law enforcement bills of rights--they encourage police departments to let external forces determine what behavior is unacceptable. That's eventually why Rhode Island's Krawetz resigned his post.

In short, according to all of this, with rare exception, an internal investigation will almost never see justice done for the average American citizen unless another police organization takes the reigns in said investigation.

So, now that we know this, what can be done, short of open rebellion against arrests? Because, as I see it,passive peaceful protests, facebook & twitter links, & even phone calls to said departments amount to didley.

Does this new info solve anything, or give us another avenue to explore, or is it all a giant waste of time?

What say you?

a reply to: schadenfreude

How could he keep his job as an officer if he was a convicted felon? Felons can't own guns and subsequently can't be an officer. I will admit I only skimmed the article. I may have overlooked something.

From what I take from reading the article they are trying to compare an internal affairs investigation to an arrest of an individual based on probable cause. That is an unfair comparison. An internal affairs investigation is kind of the equivalent to a private company investigating a HR complaint. I am sure the process is similar.

When an officer is arrested for something two things occur concurrently, the criminal investigation and an internal affairs investigation.

If a complaint against an officer is criminal and sufficient probable cause exits, in theory the officer should be arrested. The same processes (arrest, booking, court) applies to the officer as does someone who is not law enforcement.

The officers bill of rights provides no protection or privledges in regards to criminal arrest procedures. It only applies to internal affairs investigations and civil suits.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

And how many cops are held accountable by the "criminal investigation" part of the process?

You said you only skimmed the article, can you say for certain that-

Their departments cannot publicly acknowledge that the officer is under investigation; if the officer is cleared of wrongdoing or the charges are dropped, the department may not publicly acknowledge that the investigation ever took place, or reveal the nature of the complaint. The officer cannot be questioned or investigated by "non-government agents," which means no civilian review boards. If the officer is suspended as a result of the investigation, he must continue to receive full pay and benefits until his case is resolved. In most states, the charging department must subsidize the accused officer's legal defense. A violation of any of the above rights can result in dismissal—not of the officer, but of the charges against him. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

this procedure only applies to the HR part of the investigation?

I only ask b/c I honestly don't know, but once again it sounds like a double set of laws & procedures to me.

Does that sound anything remotely like justice to you?

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

hell didnt u hear about the cop who was ruled un fit to carry a gun in his private life but gets to carry one on the clock now if thats not a double standard i dont know what is www.pennlive.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com... related ats thread

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Not disagreeing with either of you. Just pointing out the officers bill of rights doesn't grant immunity from criminal charges or procedures.

Look some internal's affairs officers will nail another officers butt to the wall if they screw up and some will do nothing. The ones that do nothing should be fired and face criminal charges.

My department has always had IA guys that would nail an officers butt to the wall if they did something wrong.

I believe there should be community oversight to assist in these types of situations.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

arent some police forces under civilian or federal oversight allready? i feel that might be a good soloution,wire up all the cops with cameras and gps and then if anything happens have an independent board rule on the matter have the board be non police or perhaps even elect the oversight board?

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Yeah some are, but not the majority. Citizen oversight and mandatory cameras are two things I support.