The Rights of the Unappreciated

Just as many complain about their treatment at the hands of the police, the police complain of their treatment at the hands of others.  And bad as you have it, some police officers believe they have it far worse. This isn't an outsider guessing at what a cop is thinking (a great parlor game, by the way), but what cops have to say for themselves. From Police One:

A photo of Boles’ dead body began circulating the city. The St. Louis Police Department launched an internal affairs investigation into who took the photo and how it was disseminated.

Ultimately, the Department sought a court order for responding officers’ cell phone photo records, claiming the officers were not cooperating with the investigation and providing the relevant information voluntarily.

A spokesman for the local Police Officers Association was quick to respond, telling the media how awful it was for morale to know your administration:

“[D]oesn’t think that you have the same [Fourth Amendment] rights as every criminal out there has.”

I hear the same confusion in my training about officers’ 1st and 4th Amendment rights — and liabilities — in the internet age. It comes in the form of:

“You mean I put everything on the line to protect and serve and I have fewer Constitutional rights than criminals who violate other peoples’ rights?”

Simply put, yes.

Brush away that tear. There's more.

[A] New Orleans police officer who commented on a local TV station’s website about the fatal shooting of teenager Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. The officer posted, “Act like a Thug Die like one!” When another commenter named “Eddie” questioned whether the officer was racist and a hoodie sweatshirt made someone a thug, the officer replied:

“Eddie come on down to our town with a ‘Hoodie’ and you can join Martin in HELL and talk about your racist stories!”

The officer was suspended and then resigned. The first two reader comments to the article on PoliceOne illustrate confusion:

“When are officers across this country going to learn that your 1st Amendment rights are severely restricted?”

“Absolutely disagree! Our 1st Amendment rights are not restricted simply because we chose to join the law enforcement profession. Nowhere in my Oath of Office did it say “and I forfeit the following USC rights...”

Feel the pain. Feel the anguish. And you thought it was just power and free donuts.

Not only is the article, not to mention the commentary, bizarrely yet facilely misguided, but it feeds the antagonism police feel toward others. And this is what police are telling, teaching and spreading amongst themselves. Before you get unduly outraged, it bears a certain similarity to those who hate all cops, impugn their motives at every turn and relies on facile rationalizations to blame them under every circumstance. Then again, they have guns and shields, which makes their threats of harm a bit more serious.

What this shows isn't that cops have fewer rights than anyone else, but different responsibilities. When they speak in uniform or as a self-identified police officer, they can't spew the hatred, threats and venom they feel as private citizens because they are speaking as an agent of government.

That's the job they chose, taking on a distinct role. On the bright side, they get to shoot dogs whenever they feel the slightest hint of personal threat. On the dark side, they can't put every cool pic they have on the internet. We all have trade-offs in life, just as we can't fully exercise our First Amendment rights to police officers or they will think us contemptuous of their authority, and we prefer not to be beaten.

But the question isn't always their right to speak their mind, but what speaking their mind tell us about them. For example, an expression that might be seen as a good reason to seek psychiatric treatment as a private citizen could form the basis for a belief that a police officer is unfit to be given and gun and set loose on society.  The issue isn't the right of free speech, but the right of a person who has exercised free speech to be a cop.  If what you have to say suggests that you are a danger to society, then maybe you shouldn't be handed a gun and shield? 

But don't pull out that tiny violin just yet.  Police still have a few rights in their bag, such as the right to remain silent as exercised by former Bell, California Police Chief Randy Adams. Fighting for his due, a pension of $510,000 following his glorious one year tenure as Chief, CalPERS tried to turn the tables on him.

Already one of California's highest paid public pensioners, former Bell Police Chief Randy Adams this week asked a state pension panel to double his retirement pay to reflect the huge salary he received during his brief stint as the top cop in the scandal-plagued city.

If  Adams wins his case, which is being heard in Orange County, his pension would zoom to $510,000 a year, making him the second-highest-paid public pensioner in California.

On the witness stand Thursday, Adams invoked his 5th Amendment right to not incriminate himself 20 times, including when asked about his Bell salary, which was among the highest law enforcement paychecks in the nation.

For the uninitiated, there is no entitlement more sacred to law enforcement than their pension. They earn it by risking their lives every day on the streets protecting you from the criminals.  Even if they sit in an office, the biggest risk they face is a paper cut and they can't distinguish between the people they're trying to save and the criminals they're saving them from. Be thankful puppies are all furry, or they might be shooting children by mistake.

Rather than complain about how criminals have more rights that cops, every sworn officer should think long and hard about Chief Randy Adam's invocation of his right not to incriminate himself during his testimony to get his rightful pension and thank their lucky stars they are cops in America.   They may not be able to whine as freely as they like, but no one can stop them from saying the most important thing:Viginti et ex.

H/T FritzMuffKnuckle

© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.

Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/09/22/the-rights-of-the-unappreciated-.aspx?ref=rss

letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer local solicitors