LOL NYPD is losing personal at a record pace

Deplorable Me

Deplorable Me

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
24,363
Reaction score
47,561
Location
Western Front; Occupied NY
As underqualified people get into these positions the injury and death rate will climb within the LEO AND CIVILIAN ranks justifying the continued disarmermant of the population. The lower the qualification and lesser the experience the bigger the inflated ego on both sides.

On the flip side, the Karens of the world will have a field day.
 
FP1201

FP1201

.308 Win
Messages
4,309
Reaction score
7,142
Location
Adams, NY
This has been going on for close to four years now...anyone with enough time to collect any sort of pension are long gone, and those that have secured private employment are giving the City the big FU!
 
libertysnake

libertysnake

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,465
Reaction score
15,699
Location
New York
Rocpo said:
You gotta make it to that big cushy pension first.
No issues at all for being liable for those decisions. BIG issue with being railroaded for political expediency for the political class. If I'm morally, ethically, legally right and within department policy, then I should NOT be held liable because some asshole says "optics look bad."
Click to expand...

So, what happens when the department policy conflicts with the constitution? Because that's the decision you have to make -- whether you stand with the department or the constitution. What is your priority?
 
R

Rocpo

.44 mag
Messages
805
Reaction score
1,791
Location
Column 5
libertysnake said:
So, what happens when the department policy conflicts with the constitution? Because that's the decision you have to make -- whether you stand with the department or the constitution. What is your priority?
Click to expand...
You're gonna have to be way more specific than that.
You see it as a plain Constitution issue.
I'm saddled with Federal Case Law, State Case Law, State Law, Law Department Policy, Department Policy, Patrol Directives, Supervisor Orders/Directives.
Almost all of which can conflict with each other.
 
libertysnake

libertysnake

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,465
Reaction score
15,699
Location
New York
Rocpo said:
You're gonna have to be way more specific than that.
You see it as a plain Constitution issue.
I'm saddled with Federal Case Law, State Case Law, State Law, Law Department Policy, Department Policy, Patrol Directives, Supervisor Orders/Directives.
Almost all of which can conflict with each other.
Click to expand...

The constitution trumps all those. Every. Single. One. So it doesn't matter what order any of those fall within. If they are at odds with the language of the constitution, then they are null and void.
 
tirwin1

tirwin1

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
14,443
Reaction score
38,564
Location
rochester
Dr. Evil said:
I'll bet there's plenty of social workers lying in wait.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I'm reminded of the movie clockwork orange. Where the government deliberately hired thugs as police officers and plans to release real criminals from prison to make way for political prisoners.
 
R

Rocpo

.44 mag
Messages
805
Reaction score
1,791
Location
Column 5
libertysnake said:
The constitution trumps all those. Every. Single. One. So it doesn't matter what order any of those fall within. If they are at odds with the language of the constitution, then they are null and void.
Click to expand...
So exactly where in the Constitution does it discuss DWI arrests?
Domestic Violence arrests?
Or any Penal Law section?
 
R

Rocpo

.44 mag
Messages
805
Reaction score
1,791
Location
Column 5
libertysnake said:
It doesn't. But when it says "shall not be infringed," it should be clear that any attempt to curb this Right is in opposition to The People.
Click to expand...
Ahhhhh and we've finally gotten to the specifics finally!
Correct. However, I'm no more of a Constitutional Scholar than anyone else on this site. Unfortunately, that leaves me at the whims of the USSC decisions, same as anyone else. And until some decisions are made, I'm no more authorized to supercede USSC than anyone else.

Having said that, I've SPECIFICALLY refused to enforce the CCIA, knowing it would be struck down. Unfortunately, the law is still on the books and subject to enforcement.
 
libertysnake

libertysnake

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,465
Reaction score
15,699
Location
New York
Rocpo said:
Ahhhhh and we've finally gotten to the specifics finally!
Correct. However, I'm no more of a Constitutional Scholar than anyone else on this site. Unfortunately, that leaves me at the whims of the USSC decisions, same as anyone else. And until some decisions are made, I'm no more authorized to supercede USSC than anyone else.

Having said that, I've SPECIFICALLY refused to enforce the CCIA, knowing it would be struck down. Unfortunately, the law is still on the books and subject to enforcement.
Click to expand...
If a law is in direct conflict with the constitution, is it a law? That's a very interesting question we must all ask ourselves....

I know where I stand on that. Do you?
 
R

Rocpo

.44 mag
Messages
805
Reaction score
1,791
Location
Column 5
libertysnake said:
If a law is in direct conflict with the constitution, is it a law? That's a very interesting question we must all ask ourselves....

I know where I stand on that. Do you?
Click to expand...
I know exactly where I stand.
Unfortunately, I don't have the same luxury to only see things as Constitution only.
 
libertysnake

libertysnake

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,465
Reaction score
15,699
Location
New York
I don't see the issue you're seeing. Isn't it an oligation as the very first part of the oath, though?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States,..."
 
R

Rocpo

.44 mag
Messages
805
Reaction score
1,791
Location
Column 5
Of course you don't. And that's the luxury I speak of.
USSC decisions define what the Constitution meant, whether or not you believe so.
 
T

Truebeliever

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,489
Reaction score
1,620
Location
Nys
libertysnake said:
Add qualified immunity on top of this and big cushy pensions and no wonder there is so much complaining from LEO about how hard it is. No shit. It's a tough job.

I heard two LEO talking about this at the gym, why they retired because in the aftermath of the Floyd stuff it became too hard. I'm not saying it was justified how that all shook out, but the job demands you make tough choices for which you could be liable. That's life, just like us "civilians."
Click to expand...
It’s not the same . Not even close. As far as qualified immunity— it’s not what you think . Cops get sued all the time . It’s swallowing bs said and done to you that most posters here would put their fist through that other person’s face if they did it to them. Or the person could just call the police and police could do something because it happened to a non police person and not them .
If a doctor makes a mistake , he isn’t facing criminal charges . Cops are. And are getting charged for things a different cop did in these witch hunts . Freddie grey for example . Cops who the DA knew were miles away when Grey was injured were charged with it. There are many other examples.
Having been on both sides of this, I can tell you LE has it much worse now than the civ. If the cop even says something, or even is 100% right, there is an internet “auditor “ ready to deceptively exit the video and make a viral video against the cop. At that point , the truth rarely matters and the politicians sell the cop down the river
This doesn’t include the internal discipline system the cop faces .
Not only does the cop have the “me, too” and other HR things to worry about but there are people actively paid to bait cops and get them to say something that can be misconstrued or anyone could just lose their cool over . Like the BLM protestors who “googled” the cop in front of them, showed the cop pictures of his kids, the schools they attend and told the cop how “sweet” their kids look — these are often convicted child molsters . Cop does something guess who is in trouble. But a civilian could get the guy arrested if it was done to them . See any difference?
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
35,384
Reaction score
37,575
Location
Livingston
Rocpo said:
USSC decisions define what the Constitution meant, whether or not you believe so.
Click to expand...

but they got roe vs wade wrong and reversed it finally ..

and now Bruen ..

but some of you all still want to step on the snake ...

The 2A was written in 8th grade English if not 6th grade ..
 
Last edited:
spat

spat

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
27,524
Reaction score
57,766
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
Rocpo said:
You're gonna have to be way more specific than that.
You see it as a plain Constitution issue.
I'm saddled with Federal Case Law, State Case Law, State Law, Law Department Policy, Department Policy, Patrol Directives, Supervisor Orders/Directives.
Almost all of which can conflict with each other.
Click to expand...
Constitution Trumps all of that.
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
35,384
Reaction score
37,575
Location
Livingston
amend the 2A and put all this into it ..

I'm saddled with Federal Case Law, State Case Law, State Law, Law Department Policy, Department Policy, Patrol Directives, Supervisor Orders/Directives.
 
spat

spat

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
27,524
Reaction score
57,766
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
Rocpo said:
Of course you don't. And that's the luxury I speak of.
USSC decisions define what the Constitution meant, whether or not you believe so.
Click to expand...
No, the plain language of the constitution defines what the constitution means.

70 years ago the "authorities" ordered everyone with Japanese ancestors rounded up and sent to camps.

That was plainly and uncontrovertibly unconstitutional.

Would you have participated in that ? Would it matter what authority said otherwise ?

If SCOTUS rules a man can get pregnant, does that make it so ?

Reality must Trump everything, and the plain language of the constitution must Trump all other laws, policies, rules, or decisions.
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
7,156
Reaction score
13,689
Location
Rochester
spat said:
That's a very good question.

Where *is* all of that stuff authorized.
Click to expand...
Well, he DID admit he wasn't a Constitutional scholar. SO he probably can't tell the difference between an enumerated Right and something that would fall under the 10th Amendment.

DWI, Domestic violence, penal law... all of that SHOULD be stuff that the States have determined are necessary AFTER making sure they do not infringe on enumerated Rights.
And, when certain tyrannical state legislatures stray outside their pervue, he, as a cop, SHOULD be able to know and, at a minimum, not enforce those unConstitutional Laws, and, at best, arrest the politician who violates people's Rights.
But that would take work, so they fall back on "we have to wait until the USSC tells us what to think, and even then it's hard so don't expect much."

It's a round-about way of saying they will arrest you and infringe your rights if a tyrant tells them to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top