Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Coniferous]

I mean, you're basically going panel-by-panel, dude.



You've just hit Panel 6.




If I can't prove it didn't happen?

No, I don't agree with that. To agree with that, I'd have to defend leaving a potential predator in a position to target more victims.

The OCT page I linked doesn't immediately leap to dismissal in all cases because it's covering all cases of professional misconduct, including yelling at a student, showing up to work drunk, not having the records I'm required to maintain like student assessments, or the lovely generic entry of "conduct unbecoming a member". Not all of those would mandate being removed for a single offense, but sexually abusing a student absolutely should.

So we're back to the key point of dissension, and how this relates back to police - we've agreed that there are situations where it is plausible the cop/teacher didn't violate any rules but is unable to prove their innocence. These situations won't come up frequently but they do come up. In those situations you believe the cop/teacher should be fired, I don't.

I don't necessarily have a problem with you having a different position - there's no answer here that works in all circumstances. But I'm overall a pretty lenient punisher - I think most prison sentences are way too long, and I worry about putting people in positions where they can no longer be useful to society, like, someone who went through training to become a cop, and is well compensated based on his/her long career as a cop, then suddenly needs to find a new job/career because they were wrongfully accused in a scenario that was out of their control. And overall, a big thing for me is that the cop/teacher can't be guaranteed of getting away with it in most situations described - they are still in a situation where there's a pretty decent likelihood they are caught red handed (i.e., in a classroom, open door, or for a cop, bodycam on). However, on the other side (this applies to teachers, not really to cops), it's pretty easy for an accuser to falsely accuse when there's no way to verify their accusation.

[Endus]

So we're back to the key point of dissension, and how this relates back to police - we've agreed that there are situations where it is plausible the cop/teacher didn't violate any rules but is unable to prove their innocence. These situations won't come up frequently but they do come up. In those situations you believe the cop/teacher should be fired, I don't.

I don't necessarily have a problem with you having a different position - there's no answer here that works in all circumstances. But I'm overall a pretty lenient punisher - I think most prison sentences are way too long, and I worry about putting people in positions where they can no longer be useful to society, like, someone who went through training to become a cop, and is well compensated based on his/her long career as a cop, then suddenly needs to find a new job/career because they were wrongfully accused in a scenario that was out of their control. And overall, a big thing for me is that the cop/teacher can't be guaranteed of getting away with it in most situations described - they are still in a situation where there's a pretty decent likelihood they are caught red handed (i.e., in a classroom, open door, or for a cop, bodycam on). However, on the other side (this applies to teachers, not really to cops), it's pretty easy for an accuser to falsely accuse when there's no way to verify their accusation.

We aren't talking about legal penalties, here. We're talking about professional standards and protecting the vulnerable public from abuse.

You keep deflecting to legal consequences because you don't want to actually deal with the actual issue at hand. We're not talking about whether a teacher should be sentenced to prison for statutory rape, here, we're talking about whether their employer should continue to employ them when there's a possibility they're raping students. By example.

[Coniferous]

We aren't talking about legal penalties, here. We're talking about professional standards and protecting the vulnerable public from abuse.

You keep deflecting to legal consequences because you don't want to actually deal with the actual issue at hand. We're not talking about whether a teacher should be sentenced to prison for statutory rape, here, we're talking about whether their employer should continue to employ them when there's a possibility they're raping students. By example.

I'm sorry, you are mistaken. Nothing in my most recent post referred to legal standards except to say that I'm a pretty lenient punisher with legal standards as well. I am aware that we are talking about firing, not incarceration, and so of course my previous post was about firing. I agree that the legal standard for a crime should be higher than the standard for firing. That said, I still think the standard for firing should be pretty high.

[Specialka]

We aren't talking about legal penalties, here. We're talking about professional standards and protecting the vulnerable public from abuse.

You keep deflecting to legal consequences because you don't want to actually deal with the actual issue at hand. We're not talking about whether a teacher should be sentenced to prison for statutory rape, here, we're talking about whether their employer should continue to employ them when there's a possibility they're raping students. By example.

So now, we should fire people over one accusation of one person without any kind of evidence (especially when there was no previous case) ? Seems reasonable.

[Endus]

So now, we should fire people over one accusation of one person without any kind of evidence (especially when there was no previous case) ? Seems reasonable.

Testimony is evidence.

A lack of an alibi is evidence.

So you're arguing against a straw man right out of the gate.

And we're talking about cause for firing, for which you don't generally need evidence and certainly not to a high legal standard. "Money's missing from the till and you were the only one with access" is cause to fire a cashier, by way of example, even if you'd never make that case stick in a theft prosecution.

[Specialka]

Testimony is evidence.

A lack of an alibi is evidence.

So you're arguing against a straw man right out of the gate.

A single testimony without any "hard" evidence (witness, DNA sample, etc...) is a weak evidence. If there was several accusations against a single person, that testimony would be weighted more heavily

[Endus]

A single testimony without any "hard" evidence (witness, DNA sample, etc...) is a weak evidence. If there was several accusations against a single person, that testimony would be weighted more heavily

Doesn't matter.

Again; we are not talking about a criminal prosecution, or even a civil lawsuit. I know it's convenient to pretend otherwise, because the burden of proof in a courtroom is so much higher, but that's a deflection.

[Orange Joe]

A single testimony without any "hard" evidence (witness, DNA sample, etc...) is a weak evidence. If there was several accusations against a single person, that testimony would be weighted more heavily

It's enough to get innocent people shot by police which you then justify so?

[Specialka]

Doesn't matter.

Again; we are not talking about a criminal prosecution, or even a civil lawsuit. I know it's convenient to pretend otherwise, because the burden of proof in a courtroom is so much higher, but that's a deflection.

I was not talking about the legal part of the case. Firing someone for a single testimony without any evidence nor witness seems totally reasonable

[Orange Joe]

I was not talking about the legal part of the case. Firing someone for a single testimony without any evidence nor witness seems totally reasonable

Again you are ok with it being enough to get people shot over, but not fired..... hypocrisy at it's finest.

[Specialka]

Again you are ok with it being enough to get people shot over, but not fired..... hypocrisy at it's finest.

Yes, next time, cops should ask politely if they will rebel or shoot at them.

[Orange Joe]

Yes, next time, cops should ask politely if they will rebel or shoot at them.

Just funny you hold cops to the lowest standard of anyone instead of higher.

Who the fuck cares who is suppose to be protecting us right?

[Endus]

I was not talking about the legal part of the case. Firing someone for a single testimony without any evidence nor witness seems totally reasonable

Again, there's evidence, you're just discounting it because, for some godforsaken reason, you're taking up the cause of predatory teachers and abusive cops.

[Specialka]

Again, there's evidence, you're just discounting it because, for some godforsaken reason, you're taking up the cause of predatory teachers and abusive cops.

Sorry, one testimony about someone who is not known of the police is not enough to warrant being fired.

[Orange Joe]

Sorry, one testimony about someone who is not known of the police is not enough to warrant being fired.

but it IS enough to be shot..... The fact that you don't even get this is fucking hilarious.

[Specialka]

but it IS enough to be shot..... The fact that you don't even get this is fucking hilarious.

Again, cops should ask politely if they are going to get shot at.

[Endus]

Sorry, one testimony about someone who is not known of the police is not enough to warrant being fired.

Testimony, combined with an inability of the officer or teacher to exculpate themselves. Which is also evidence.

Once you've established that the individual had means and opportunity, motive isn't a big leap, not when you've got testimony speaking to that.

And again; we're talking about getting cause to fire a person. This is not a high bar. It's not as high as the burden of proof for a lawsuit (preponderance of the evidence), let alone a criminal charge (beyond a reasonable doubt).

Like I said; you're hand-waving all of this, because you're trying to protect abusive cops.

[Egomaniac]

Sorry, one testimony about someone who is not known of the police is not enough to warrant being fired.

Except it is. Especially in America.

[Specialka]

Testimony, combined with an inability of the officer or teacher to exculpate themselves. Which is also evidence.

Once you've established that the individual had means and opportunity, motive isn't a big leap, not when you've got testimony speaking to that.

And again; we're talking about getting cause to fire a person. This is not a high bar. It's not as high as the burden of proof for a lawsuit (preponderance of the evidence), let alone a criminal charge (beyond a reasonable doubt).

Like I said; you're hand-waving all of this, because you're trying to protect abusive cops.

You should search about the Outreau trial in France. Everything was based on testimonies of children and the inability of adults to "explain" themselves.

[Coniferous]

Except it is. Especially in America.

I think it's important to distinguish between public and private employees in America here. Pubic employees have more protections, and there's good reason for that because (unlike the private sector) governments aren't in business to earn money, so there are all sorts of things politicians would do that would destabilize the profession if it weren't for union protections (for example, superintendents have noted in the past that they don't mind high employee turnover because it allows them to hire cheap replacements - which has long term negative effects that a current superintendent or politician won't likely be held liable for). Also, public jobs are heavily underpaid for the first few years with the expectation that you make it up later - stability is a big draw for the profession because you're there's not much upside to it.

So the net result is the public union employees tend to have more rights (that they've bargained for) than private employees.