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?