Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|
Kansas Kops try something Nasty
On Monday, March 31, 2014 7:19:36 PM UTC-7, Ray Keller wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
Kansas Considers A "Punish Complainers & Silence Critics" Bill
Posted 16 hours ago by Mark Horne
Just to review, in Kansas you can be SWAT-raided and never be
permitted to learn the basis for the warrant. This means the police
can get a warrant for bogus reasons and reasonably expect that, if
their victims are innocent, they will never be able to call them into
an account.
So naturally, the Kansas state legislature has decided to add official
protections to the police so that they are still more invulnerable to
public scrutiny.
The bill is, thankfully, stalled at the moment, but it is not dead. It
is called the "filing false complaints against a law enforcement
officer" bill.
Filing a false complaint is already a crime under civil law. This
bill, however, not only adds the new felony definition, but it makes
several other changes. Here is TechDirt's list (my bullet points).
Officers would be allowed to view the complaint and any related
evidence before making a statement, giving accused officers a chance
to craft narratives before issuing statements that might be
contradicted by the evidence submitted.
The complaint's lack of anonymity would give accused officers the
name, address, phone number, etc. of their accuser, something that
could easily lead to harassment.
The bill stipulates that "no other law enforcement agency" can
open an investigation on a complaint if another agency has performed
an investigation and found no evidence of wrongdoing. This would keep
all investigations "in-house," which greatly contributes to the
likelihood that complaints will be found false (and subsequently,
result in felony charges against the filer). This would prevent
agencies like the FBI and DOJ from investigating closed complaints to
see if anything was missed or covered up. This stipulation would
further insulate police from accountability.
I'm not as certain as Tim Cushing at TechDirt that forbidding
anonymous complaints is a bad thing, though it is certainly wrong to
give the accusers name and contact data to the accused police
officer(s).
Hopefully, this bill is stalled because everyone realizes how bad it
is. Ironically, the sponsors of the bill are not named because an
entire committee proposed the law. As Cushing remarks, "safety in
numbers."
I realize that police can be falsely accused. But I have to balance
that consideration with this basic question: How often does a police
officer get held accountable for making a false accusation against a
non-police officer?
In my view, the answer is almost never. This bill needs to be trashed,
not passed.
Read more at
http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/03/...uii0a0JOGD7.99
--
"
I was once told by a "gun safety" advocate back in the Nineties
that he favored total civilian firearms confiscation.
Only the military and police should have weapons he averred and what did I
think about that?
I began to give him a reasoned answer and he
cut me off with an abrupt, "Give me the short answer."
I thought for a moment and said, "If you try to take our firearms we will
kill you.""
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Sounds like a dead cop bill to me.
There will allways be accountability,,,,,,one way or another
Not too smart to remove lagal accountability
Sounds like you're stupid enough to be Mark Wieber's roommate or some such.
I've noted the two of you seem to post at the same time very frequently and you both appear to be in very close contact. If Mark Wieber bent over too quickly would you end up with a broken neck from having your head shoved up his ass?
|