“I must serve honestly, faithfully, and if need be, lay down my life as others have done before me, rather than swerve from the path of duty. It is my duty to obey the law and to enforce it without any consideration of class, color, creed or condition.” -Pennyslvania State Police Oath.
Just using my own state, but there’s nothing stating about the integrity of their position.
They have to do with WHAT the duty of a law enforcement officer exactly is. Castle Rock v. Gonzales has to do with police protecting the public. In the supreme court ruling, they determined that police officers have no duty to protect citizens. Essentially, it’s not their job. Their job is only to enforce laws.
Why would a municipal law enforcement agency have a task force with some weird military-esque designation? Seems really suspect to me. Regardless…
The cops must fry for this one. Even if you commit a crime, your fate is to be determined by a jury of your peers, not the strong arm of the government.
I don’t personally give a rip about your constitution, nor would I expect you to care about the Canadian constitution. To me it’s irrelevant if these cops violated constitutional law or some other law.
Yes they sure as hell do. In 2020, the Tennessee governor implement a reform which includes the following:
Rendering Medical Aid
Any time a person has visible injuries or complains of being injured as
a result of force used against him/her by an officer, the officer must
take appropriate actions to provide medical care for the injured person.
This includes providing first aid, requesting emergency medical
services, and/or arranging for other transportation to a hospital or
emergency medical facility.
My guess is that it was a full frontal assault on gang activity, but that’s only a guess. I have no evidence to back that up.
“On my honor, I will never Betray my integrity, my character Or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always maintain the highest ethical standards and uphold the values of my community, and the agency I serve.”— International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Reflecting, this may be wrong since not every officer is a chief.
Yeah, I read that but I again assumed it only applied to that state.
Yeah, assuming they are guilty.
Even if your fate is determined by a jury, you may not get a fair trial.
Of course you may ask, but I don’t understand why you’re asking. Why do you care if the cops are found guilty by state law, federal law, or constitutional law? It seems like such an arcane and irrelevant thing to fuss over.
Murder isn’t specifically prohibited in our constitution here in Canada. I’m not sure if it is there in the US. When people murder others, they are held accountable by the Criminal Code of Canada. Who gives a rip if it’s in the constitution or somewhere else, as long as the criminals are held accountable? What an odd thing to fuss over.
Also, do you really want a 4000 page constitution? That would be the result.
In the court of public opinion those 9 bastards each deserve a bullet for murdering that young man. No doubt about it. But the issue comes down to the letter of the law.
Because of how law priority is structured (Federal trumps State, State trumps Local/Municipal Laws), that example from Tennessee wouldn’t stand a snowballs chance in hell of being upheld within the federal court system, as there are already two precedent rulings.
I do care about whether Tyre’s constitutional rights were violated or not. If they were, then it levies charges of higher crimes with higher penalties. Constitutionality has everything to do with this case, and if more people understood the basics of how the judiciary system works in the US (you’re Canadia, so no expectations here) there’d be less Dunning-Kreuger’s running around as Monday Morning Lawyers.
Mark, no offense but you’re the one sounding like you don’t understand basic jurisprudence. These are city cops facing state charges. The feds are not involved at this point at all and no federal charges have been brought. They might be in the future, but right now this is a state case.
Obviously the federal courts would not generally enforce state laws, but as they are not involved at all at this point, that isn’t relevant. Tennessee law applies here and it doesn’t matter at all if your constitution doesn’t require a cop to render aid since Tennessee does require this. Again, it’s Tennessee charges they’re currently facing.
Does that mean they have no constitutional rights?
I don’t know what your constitution says(not much, I assume) but the U.S. Constitution was designed to offer protections like illegal search and seizure and self-incrimination. Are you against the accused having those rights?
I wouldn’t have fussed over it if you were clearer. I thought you meant you didn’t care if they violated any law.
Yes, people have constitutional rights. These are not the only rights people have, and if the constitution doesn’t allow or prohibit something, that doesn’t mean some other law doesn’t allow it or prohibit it. It is a mistake to suggest that, because the constitution doesn’t require people to render aid, that a person is not required to render aid. Other laws may require it.
I’m not against that at all, nor am I against constitutional rights, nor am I against constitutions. I just observe that there are other laws in force in both our countries.
I admit, I am surprised and pleased that the BLM people refrained from burning more US cities this time around. This is almost certainly due to the fact that the cops were black, but I’ll take it.
Reg has posted this a couple of times before so I’m certain you’ve seen it all before, probably a long time ago. I think it’s of a white officer shooting a black kid in the back. That was cruel, but it pales in comparison to the beating Nichols took, imo.
Right, because they saw him dying right in front of them and heard him crying and calling his mom. Because they all watched and none either spoke up or acted in his defense. I get angry when I think about how they circled around and looked down on him.
That’s correct. The thing that gets me about that case is the guy was unarmed, had been pulled over for a traffic stop, and ran away. The cop pulls out his gun and shoots him eight times in the back. Just total cold blooded murder.
Anyway, I’m not trying to turn it into a contest of which was the worst murder. Both cases are sick.