Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Going on a "witch hunt" on Halloween. Hey FOP, which witch is the wicked witch?

I got to speak to today in Pittsburgh City Council Chambers just after Mr. Jim M, the boss of the Pgh FOP (Fraternal Order of Police). He called the proposed domestic abuse bills and associated amendments a "witch hunt."

He provided the perfect introduction for a Haloween scare.

I don't want to dwell on the topic, but my support goes to Jeanie Clark and the good witches who hope to curb the powerful who have been given the upper hand with a badge, gun, or government job yet are known to have some feeling scared.

Jim Motznik says that all city employees with PFAs (Protection From Abuse) orders given to them by a judge should be under the same treatment.

Humm....

I feel that we shouldn't hire and promote those with PFAs. And, it would be good to not elect them as well.

Pittsburgh has serious problems with corruption. The Pgh Ethics Hearing Board is one slam dunk example, woops.... what out for that 'slamming.'

Plenty of trust among the citizens in the city, and throughout the nation, has been lost. Let's act. Let's work to protect those that need the protection by taking down the ones with power. Abuse of power by the powerful should be addressed.

2 comments:

labor 4 life said...

Mark R.

For a self described libertarian who should believe in LESS governement, I am surprised you are in favor of additional laws that intrude on individuals rights to liberty, due process, and being innocent until proven guilty.

In the same day you also endorse Dave S. for council who proposes taking away gun rights, and mandating that each citizen carry the equivalent to "traveling papers".

What happens when an officer is accused falsely? and is then cleared by a court of law or a jury of his or her peers?

Does that mean the city will restore his position and make him whole for his lost wages?

Not to mention- correct the injustice that was done to his credibility before being falsely accused?

Mark Rauterkus said...

This is a good issue to wrangle about. I do feel strongly about less government.

Police are government. The police can snap away one's liberty at a moments notice. Police need to be kept in check.

When the police go bad, it is really, really bad. And, I'm not saying that the police are bad. No way. But, a citizen that gets a threat from a member of the force is in a real pickle.

So, I say, error on the side of less government power and decrease the power to the ones who can abuse the powers the most.

In no way are we talking about a loss of due process. Being innocent until proven guilty is still valid here. But, being a member of the police force while under serious doubt is not so prudent.

Investigations can happen quickly.

PFAs can't be given out on a lark.

When an officer is accused falsely, the investigation will clear him or her. Life goes on. That won't need to go to court or jury. It would be a matter of days.

Sure the city will restore his position. And lost wages need not be lost. Crossing guards don't carry guns. Administrative duties are available.

One's credibility is cleared in a blink when a gun and badge are worn.

The falsely accused should be able to press a counter suit in private arbitration. But a judge has to dish out the PFA, right.

Next up, Dave S. chatter. Watch David's video interview. Just posted. He is not strong on the gun rights for automatic weapons. He and I don't see eye to eye either on the need to carry I.D.

But, ... I have no problems with the intent of keeping the police on the streets and out of the endless conversations with Jane Doe and John Doe.

I've seen it outside my window. A gal makes an assault. She is grabbed by police. She has no I.D. She is walking away in 25 minutes with a ticket made to someone else because she was less than honest with the police. Nuts!

I have no problem with that person, without I.D., going to a holding cell until the ID is produced by a friend. It might take 6 hours. Whatever.