Equal rights for women in Texas

SmarterthanYou said:
can women be cops in texas?
Click to expand...

I see your eyesight improved. A miracle?

Tell me which of these "rights" you want to deny female law enforcement officers in Texas.

Law enforcement officers, except when on duty or acting in an official capacity, have the right to engage in political activity or run for elective office.

Law enforcement officers shall, if disciplinary action is expected, be notified of the investigation, the nature of the alleged violation, and be notified of the outcome of the investigation and the recommendations made to superiors by the investigators.

Questioning of a law enforcement officer should be conducted for a reasonable length of time and preferably while the officer is on duty unless exigent circumstances apply.

Questioning of the law enforcement officer should take place at the offices of those conducting the investigation or at the place where the officer reports to work, unless the officer consents to another location.

Law enforcement officers will be questioned by a single investigator, and he or she shall be informed of the name, rank, and command of the officer conducting the investigation.

Law enforcement officers under investigation are entitled to have counsel or any other individual of their choice present at the interrogation.

Law enforcement officers cannot be threatened, harassed, or promised rewards to induce the answering of any question.

Law enforcement officers are entitled to a hearing, with notification in advance of the date, access to transcripts, and other relevant documents and evidence generated by the hearing and to representation by counsel or another non-attorney representative at the hearing.

Law enforcement officers shall have the opportunity to comment in writing on any adverse materials placed in his or her personnel file.

Law enforcement officers cannot be subject to retaliation for the exercise of these or any other rights under Federal, State, or local law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers%27_Bill_of_Rights
 
your question is wrong. it should, instead, be why should cops, female OR male, be allowed extra rights not afforded to regular female and male citizens. OR, since you feel the need to stick to the topic verbatim, why should female cops be afforded those extra rights over female NON cops?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
your question is wrong. it should, instead, be why should cops, female OR male, be allowed extra rights not afforded to regular female and male citizens. OR, since you feel the need to stick to the topic verbatim, why should female cops be afforded those extra rights over female NON cops?
Click to expand...

Did the Texas Legislature (elected by the voters of Texas) extend extra rights to female cops not afforded to regular female and male citizens? Did the Governor of Texas sign a law extending extra rights to female cops not afforded to regular female and male citizens?
 
Big Money said:
Did the Texas Legislature (elected by the voters of Texas) extend extra rights to female cops not afforded to regular female and male citizens? Did the Governor of Texas sign a law extending extra rights to female cops not afforded to regular female and male citizens?
Click to expand...

in 1997. are you saying that a majority of people can give extra rights to specific genders or occupations, or the revers, deny rights to specific genders or occupations?
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...9-1f024193bb84_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines

MARYLAND WAS disgraced last year by a scandal at the Baltimore jail in which violent prison gang members colluded (and in some cases had sex) with corrupt correctional officers to engineer a virtual takeover of the facility. A contributing factor in the breakdown of order was that jail management found it all but impossible to discipline guards suspected of misconduct, thanks to a state law that guarantees them elaborate procedural safeguards.

That law, known as the Correctional Officers’ Bill of Rights, should have been a cautionary tale for lawmakers in Annapolis. Unfortunately, under union pressure, they are flirting with repeating the mistake — this time for police officers.



A bill drafted by the Fraternal Order of Police would force investigators to throw out any evidence of police brutality, corruption, racial profiling or other serious abuses if they made even a technical mistake while looking into suspected wrongdoing. Police chiefs and sheriffs around the state, most of whom oppose the measure, say the bill would undercut their efforts to weed out bad cops and promote public trust in their departments.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Brian E. Frosh and Del. Kathleen M. Dumais, a pair of Montgomery County Democrats, would provide police officers facing internal disciplinary action or firing with protections usually reserved for accused criminals looking at prison time. Even in Maryland, where public employees have extensive rights thanks to their political clout, no other group of state or local workers is covered by such safeguards.

The bill would expand the existing “Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights,” from which Maryland police officers and sheriff’s deputies have benefited for the past 40 years. That measure, one of the most extensive in the nation, tips the scales heavily in favor of uniformed officers suspected of misconduct by providing stringent procedures in the course of internal investigations.

In general, the current rules have worked well, although they have added fuel to a process that is so highly litigious that it often takes a couple of years or more to discipline an officer once he is suspected of wrongdoing. But it is going too far to add an “exclusionary rule” that would ban any evidence collected if investigators committed even a garden-variety technical violation of the rules.

For instance, what if an officer were informed of the names of possible witnesses nine days ahead of an administrative hearing instead of the 10 specified ? S hould that be reason to toss out all evidence of serious misconduct gathered by investigators? What if the officer is not officially informed of the name, rank and job title of a fellow officer present during his interrogation, perhaps because the two have known each other for years — should that also be sufficient to quash evidence? Lawmakers seem prepared to consider watering down the bill, and they should. By automatically excluding such evidence, they would make an unwieldy system positively sclerotic and give bad cops a free pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top