The best way to prevent your criminal history from affecting your job prospects is to be a legal criminal.
Works for the finance careers, too.
…except if you are merely an accountant…
Boy, if the Catholic Church were to pull that kind of shit, there’d be…
Oh, wait. never mind!
Huffing Boing Boing
I’m reliably informed that many people shoot the sheriff, but then didn’t shoot no deputy, oh no! Oh!
A classical rookie mistake.
What’s in it for the bad cop’s destination city/town to take on such a potentially expensive liability? I get the blue line thing, but municipal governments are run by civilian politicians with an interest in not throwing away money and getting nothing but bad publicity in return. Protect your own cops from the consequences of their actions if you must, but why import someplace else’s problem police?
Why? Police and prison workers unions.
Dude. Let the market sort itself out; no possibility of coercion, corruption, manipulation or malfeasance.
Nothing to see here, move along.
How are unions responsible for reducing govt liabilities when that action is performed for the most part by govts passing legislation that limits their liability & thus (one) incentive to police their police?
Unions protect cops, from anyone, it’s true. But that doesn’t make your point at all.
Govts don’t need to be lobbied to pass legislation that reduces govts liability. They do that by default wherever the public allows it.
Unions don’t need to lobby govt for police oversight that lacks civilian authority, because police oversight that lacks civilian authority limits the liability of govt with consistent findings of no-fault against offending officers.
Unions do negotiate contracts for police forces. Things like pay and benefits. This is good for the public. Guess where the corruption is greater, police that are paid well vs police that aren’t? If you guessed “police that aren’t paid well”, you’re correct! Welcome to right-to-work competitive policing! It’s the same concept that brought you prisons for profit!
But obviously I’m joking, because profit prisons full of non-union guards or toothless right-to-work union guards are perfectly okay, right?
Unions also pay legal fees & support police accused of crimes. So what? Our society has long agreed that even wrong-doers get someone in their corner. The problem isn’t unions backing accused officers (guilty or innocent) because if the oversight worked appropriately it would work (imperfectly still) whether the offender has legal advice or not.
Guess where things like stop n frisk come from? Management. Some cops may like it and abuse it, some may not, but management writes their orders for such things, not unions.
Same with civil forfeiture, that’s management colluding with govt.
But hey, “Unions” is so much easier than examining anything right? It’s the unions fault!
The article indicates they are gaming the system, slipping in under an almost non-existent wire. There are thousands and thousands of police agencies. No problem for a bad cop willing to travel to apply to thousands if necessary. No surprise that cops organizations would not be too attentive to police checks & background checks really. That stuff is for others, not their own.
There’s not much liability (for cops/cop agencies) & civil politicians come and go/aren’t too powerful.
Payouts to the bad cops victims via the courts don’t come out of police budgets by-and-large. Enforcement agencies may answer to local govts but only to a degree and they aren’t without significant political power. Hiring certainly would be outside the realm of influence for anyone but the dept itself.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.