Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 24, 2017, 11:31:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
103759 Posts in 2386 Topics by 1091 Members
Latest Member: Phorize
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10

 on: July 22, 2017, 09:13:45 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
"  President Trump accomplished only one thing by railing at Attorney General Sessions: He added to the growing disinclination of quality people to work in his administration. No one with self-respect wants to work in a place where the boss not only won’t back you up when the going gets tough, but will turn on you with a vengeance — especially when there’s a need to divert attention from his own shortcomings.

Whether we’re talking about the shoddy behavior that intensified calls for a special counsel or about the selection of the officials who made the key decisions that have armed the special counsel with limitless jurisdiction, the president has only himself to blame. "

As Doug says impeachment would not happen unless the Right gives in............. undecided

 on: July 22, 2017, 06:54:03 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp

Reminds me of this novel which was pretty good.  Plague in NYC, though not terrorist caused, but ending like "Fail Safe":

read this book in between ebola duties

 on: July 21, 2017, 09:03:18 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M
Just to clarify my points on what appears to be happening:

Law Enforcement Officers DO NOT have the right to remain silent as far as an Internal Affairs/Professional Standards investigations goes. If the Minn. Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is conducting a criminal investigation of the shooting, Ofc. Noor can lawyer up and refuse to speak to them. HOWEVER, he does NOT have the right to refuse to speak to MPD investigators conducting an IA/Professional Standards investigation. Failure to comply with the investigation can and almost always is cause for termination. There is a requirement that there be a wall between the criminal and internal investigation. The IA investigators are not permitted to share compelled testimony and the fruits of the compelled testimony with the criminal investigator. This wall is not absolute. In a criminal trial, the compelled statements for the IA investigators can be introduced in trial to impeach the testimony of the officer, should he/she decide to testify.

The statements from the mayor imply that she is either ignorant of this, or they have decided to protect Ofc. Noor.

A preliminary investigation by Minnesota officials suggests the fatal shooting of an Australian woman, Justine Damond, by a Minneapolis police officer may have been sparked by a “loud sound” near the police car.

In a statement, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) confirmed the identity of the two Minneapolis police officers involved in the incident as Matthew Harrity and Mohamed Noor, who has been identified in local media as the officer who allegedly shot Damond.

The bureau said it had interviewed Harrity but Noor had declined to be interviewed by BCA agents.

Betsy Hodges, mayor of Minneapolis, told a press conference in Minneapolis on Tuesday night: “We cannot by law compel Officer Noor to make a statement. I wish that he would.

“I wish that he would because he has a story to tell that only he can tell.”

Because public entities function with the consent of the governed, there is a duty to
internally investigate allegations of official and employee misconduct. All but the
smallest law enforcement agencies have established a formal protocol for investigating
complaints, whether they originate from a citizen, a member of the agency, or from an
anonymous source. [4]
The two leading Supreme Court decisions that apply to IA interviews of public
employees are Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) and NLRB v. Weingarten (1975). In a few
states, such as Illinois, a police officers’ “Bill of Rights” law also provides statutory
rights to covered officers. [5]
Police officers who are interviewed in a disciplinary setting should be warned that they
are under investigation for violation of departmental rules, that they are obligated to give
statements for internal purposes, and their answers may not be used against them in a
criminal proceeding. Without that admonition, persons who are interviewed are likely to
assume that the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause applies, and that they can
decline to answer questions without any lawful penalty.
Absent a statute on point, a warning is technically unnecessary unless the employee
declines to answer a question. However, state Bill of Rights laws, where applicable,
might require a written warning. For example, 50 Illinois Compiled Statutes 725/3.8(a)
“No officer shall be interrogated without first being advised in writing that
admissions made in the course of the interrogation may be used as evidence of
misconduct or as the basis for charges seeking suspension, removal, or discharge;
and without first being advised in writing that he or she has the right to counsel of
his or her choosing who may be present to advise him or her at any stage of any
Constitutionally, the warning is essential before any disciplinary action can be taken for a
refusal to cooperate in the interview. Lybarger v. Los Angeles (1985).
Reciting a disciplinary warning is also a good practice, because it clarifies the purpose of
the interview and delineates rights and responsibilities. A typical “Garrity Warning”

Employee Disciplinary Interview – Advice of Rights

“You are being questioned as part of an administrative investigation of the Police
Department. You will be asked questions that are specifically directed and
narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office.
You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the
constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States, including the
right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. You also have the have right to
an attorney of your choice, to be present during questioning.
“If you refuse to answer questions relating to the performance of your official
duties or fitness for duty, you will be subject to disciplinary charges which would
result in your dismissal from the Police Department.
“If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence which
is gained by reason of such statements can be used against you in any subsequent
criminal proceeding. However, these statements may be used against you in
relation to subsequent departmental charges.”

 on: July 21, 2017, 08:43:32 PM 
Started by G M - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Indeed--where the rubber meets the road.  angry

 on: July 21, 2017, 08:38:09 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M
Comey needed to be fired, but in firing him in the manner which in did, Trump unnecessarily-- and therefor stupidly-- antagonized a man whom was going to be pissed off enough as it was.

It is the kind of mistake he makes again and again.

It's almost as if the president comes from a reality TV background. One where people were dramatically fired.

 on: July 21, 2017, 08:37:04 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

This reads article REALLY badly.  DO NOTE the incongruity of the headline and this within the body:

"Officials emphasized that the information contradicting Sessions comes from U.S. intelligence on Kislyak’s communications with the Kremlin, and acknowledged that the Russian ambassador could have mischaracterized or exaggerated the nature of his interactions.

“Obviously I cannot comment on the reliability of what anonymous sources describe in a wholly uncorroborated intelligence intercept that the Washington Post has not seen and that has not been provided to me,” said Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokeswoman in a statement. She reiterated that Sessions did not discuss interference in the election."

AGAIN, on the whole this article reads quite devastatingly.

Russian and other foreign diplomats in Washington and elsewhere have been known, at times, to report false or misleading information to bolster their standing with their superiors or to confuse U.S. intelligence agencies."

 on: July 21, 2017, 08:29:59 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Uh oh.  Not good.  Given Tilllerson's life in big oil, he probably got used to saying this sort of shit a long time ago.

 on: July 21, 2017, 08:27:36 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Comey needed to be fired, but in firing him in the manner which in did, Trump unnecessarily-- and therefor stupidly-- antagonized a man whom was going to be pissed off enough as it was.

It is the kind of mistake he makes again and again.

 on: July 21, 2017, 08:23:59 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Greatly appreciate your input to our conversation YA.  You bring up many points of which I was not aware.

 on: July 21, 2017, 08:02:58 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M
I figure both Minneapolis and St. Paul are burning now, right?

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!