Whaddaya mean? He liked beer. He still likes beer.
Shows he’s consistent.
I presume that what was why he went on about it so much.
/s (I suppose that is necessary)
That doesn’t mean we need to feel bad for them.
5 Likes
Dude… that exists right now, today. There is an entire class of people who do not get equal access to council, and they’re NOT the cops.
8 Likes
I wasn’t even going to argue with them about it. LEOs are not a protected class of people. The only “work force” to my knowledge that are considered a protected class are Veterans/Military status. And that specific protection is to ensure private employers do not disparage against Reserve/National Guard members when being called on for a deployment.
I see what you did there!!
1 Like
I am not hearing that sentiment. If we allow the system to determine who does and does not deserve legal representation, I have a sneaking suspicion we will not like the outcome. But no, feel bad for this asshole? Hell no.
And I do realize that this is already an issue, but at this time we can at least argue that it is not legal to deny representation to anyone. If we make it OK to deny certain folks representation, certain factions will run with that and wind up in a very ugly place. Definition of slippery slope.
I do think it’s important to acknowledge that the current system, though, not only encourages more sympathy for LEOs that have broken the law, but it actively protects them, even when we have overwhelming evidence of their misdeeds/crimes. Lawyers will line the fuck up to represent LEOs… often pro-bono.
On top of that, if you’re working class, and especially if you’re a person of color, you have to depend on public defenders who are over worked, underpaid, and treated like hostile enemies for doing what is a nearly impossible job. I find it blinkered at best when people start to whinge about how even cops need a fair trial… I mean, how about the rest of the population get that too. Cops almost always get MORE than a fair trial. They are not under any sort of threat from the criminal justice system, where as those without money tend to have to plead out even if innocent, because it’s literally all their public defender can do for them.
TLDR: The system is rigged in FAVOR of LEOs and not acknowledging that fact and being “concerned” about unfair treatment of LEOs shows an incredibly amount of ignorance about reality.
6 Likes
No argument. Only saying that we can’t legalize denial of representation, or we will rapidly find that we are the ones being denied. As it stands, we can argue that there is a standing principle that representation is a universal right, even if it is currently violated with impunity quite regularly. We have the principle to stand on. If we undermine that, then the system would be empowered to determine just who is and is not deserving of representation. Considering the system in question, I think we would not like the outcome.
2 Likes
I’m fairly certain no one said that, at least not seriously.
And again, I’ll point out that we have that situation NOW (and for much of US history), just not for LEOs. I think we have to really examine our system of justice and correct it, because it’s not a system of justice, it’s a system of power that advantages some over others. We’ve never had a system that was fair or just. Not one day in this country.
6 Likes
Maybe overreading, but it did sound like it was serious. Of course, that could be just “Damn, not this shit again” which I feel also. And I agree that the system as it is is about as broken as broken can be. I’m perhaps a little more cautious about just blowing it up. Unless the power structure is totally changed, blowing it up lets them rebuild it even more to their benefit.
They are by practice not law. It is the difference between the segregation we experience now and the legally mandated segregation of the past. The continued existence of one shouldn’t encourage the creation of the other. Once you set the standard that any group can be denied access to a full defense how likely do you think that will stay on cops? Do you think that any other person accused of a crime after that precedent is set would be granted less representation than cops?
Since when is actual practice irrelevant? And it was not that long ago that a sizable minority in America had fewer legal rights, and it was not the police.
This is my whole point - they already literally have more rights than the rest of us. They are treated differently in a court of law than you or I. That is an indisputable fact, no matter what the laws say.
And in addition, no one here seriously said that cops should not be full representation in court. No one. Stop defending a brutal system of systemic racism and classism, because appeals to a legal structure that does not actually function how it ideally should helps no one, except the people in power.
2 Likes
My complaint is specifically to the proposal in post 26. I’m not defending the current system I am saying that specific concept, restricting access to counsel, is likely to make the overall situation worse.
We sure aren’t.
1 Like
Sounds like someone has been playing too much Saints Row the Third. I’m surprised they didn’t try that defense.
Thanks! Read through this, and honestly the story doesn’t do justice to how fucked up this is.
Oh, it also included claims that the chief of police mounted a laser sight on his gun and would point it at people. So it certainly doesn’t make the guys with the guns polite.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
