All the factors that make disbarment a necessary tool for lawyers apply to cops... except that cops don't need to be qualified in the first place.
Pretty much every professional field EXCEPT police have clear, rigorous, transparent consequences for unethical behavior, negligence and malpractice.
And as a former EMT let me tell you, you will find dropout cops in training classes that just want power over people - difference is our system has CONSEQUENCES for negligence and malpractice. We get the same chuds every now and then but they still have to help or else.
— Love Potion No. Nines (@NineJackals) January 29, 2021
All the factors that make disbarment a necessary tool for lawyers apply to cops... except that cops don't need to be qualified in the first place.
But corrupt and murderous cops can be rehired indefinitely.
Police officers however are allowed to lie in court on the stand under oath.
So much that lawyers aren't penalized for putting cops on the stand to lie.
Because if you start holding cops accountable, the whole system falls apart.
If you impugn a cop's reliability, then that affects all the cases that rely on their testimony.
So better to just look the other way, lest hundreds of cases be upended.
MUCH less RETRYING them because cops were found to be liars.
And omit critical information from reports
And falsify reports
And lie about firsthand eyewitness testimony
And invent convenient facts
And make false IDs
And everyone just moves forward because the machine must churn.
Because the whole system WILL come crashing down without overhaul.
There isn't the will to change the system so nobody will remove the radioactive Jenga brick.
More from Law
\U0001f6a8New investigation: \U0001f6a8
— Tal Kopan (@TalKopan) January 22, 2021
How sexual harassment and misconduct has been allowed to flourish in the immigration courts, a system intended to give immigrants a fair chance to stay in the U.S.:https://t.co/Lw8hpK5jSe
The story notes that the EOIR Director served as an ICE attorney in Atlanta and practiced before Cassidy for years. And it points to FOIA records unearthed by Bryan Johnson showing they remain friendly.
A trove of complaints against Cassidy was published by AILA in 2019 after FOIA litigation. They generally show misconduct, substantiated in the record, followed by "written counseling" etc.
One way Cassidy could avoid discipline is by turning off the recording device during the hearing. If he made a lewd or offensive comment off the record, all the EOIR would do is listen to the recording. If it's not there, the complaint is "unsubstantiated" https://t.co/wUeBPEEbpV
In that case, Cassidy joked about a detained immigrant saying he missed his wife. The complaint was dismissed because the ACIJ found "no levity or joking" in the comment.
Honest Q: Some people argue in good faith that an impeachment trial after POTUS leaves office is unconstitutional. I think they\u2019re wrong. But let\u2019s say they\u2019re right, yet senate does it anyway. Does anyone seriously think SCOTUS reverses verdict (or even can)?
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) January 17, 2021
Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.
Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:
According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.
The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).