• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Anybody have an update?

Liberty Sanders

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
46
Location
, ,
imported post

...on the rogue cop who openly advocated shooting open carriers on sight? I've seen nothing about it in recent weeks.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Don't expect to. Not sure how it works in "free states," but in CA the internal investigation is not open to the public because of "employee confidentiality" laws.

That means no PRAR, no FOIA, and there are civil penalties if the "employee disciplinary action" is leaked to the public.
 

Slidell Jim

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
177
Location
Slidell, La
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
there are civil penalties if the "employee disciplinary action" is leaked to the public.
So... lemme see if I got this correct?

Lets just say that an employee says something really dumb about how he would handle a work situation, and the employer chooses to demote them one paygrade, 2 days of PR training, and 2 weeks modified duty. The newspaper finds out about the comments and the subsequent discipline and runs the story in the papers.

Now if the employee works for McDonalds, then its ok to run the story cause the guy was just talking about flipping burgers with no hair net.
Or the guy worked for a car shop, then it's ok to run the story cause the guy was talking about pouring used fluids down the drain instead of recycling it.

But lets just say the employee is a Palo Alto police officer, he was talking about breaking the law, violating civil rights, and about killing people. now it becomes a "hush-hush" story because in California you cant talk about the police? or release publicly the discipline he received?
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Slidell Jim wrote:
CA_Libertarian wrote:
there are civil penalties if the "employee disciplinary action" is leaked to the public.
So... lemme see if I got this correct?

Lets just say that an employee says something really dumb about how he would handle a work situation, and the employer chooses to demote them one paygrade, 2 days of PR training, and 2 weeks modified duty. The newspaper finds out about the comments and the subsequent discipline and runs the story in the papers.

Now if the employee works for McDonalds, then its ok to run the story cause the guy was just talking about flipping burgers with no hair net.
Or the guy worked for a car shop, then it's ok to run the story cause the guy was talking about pouring used fluids down the drain instead of recycling it.

But lets just say the employee is a Palo Alto police officer, he was talking about breaking the law, violating civil rights, and about killing people. now it becomes a "hush-hush" story because in California you cant talk about the police? or release publicly the discipline he received?
All 3 of the above scenarios fall under "employee confidentiality" laws.

The difference is the guy flipping burgers probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer, let alone a union that supplies a lawyer free of charge.
 

tall_tree

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
103
Location
"Hoity-toity" Palo Alto, California, USA
imported post

Slidell Jim wrote:
CA_Libertarian wrote:
there are civil penalties if the "employee disciplinary action" is leaked to the public.
So... lemme see if I got this correct?

Lets just say that an employee says something really dumb about how he would handle a work situation, and the employer chooses to demote them one paygrade, 2 days of PR training, and 2 weeks modified duty. The newspaper finds out about the comments and the subsequent discipline and runs the story in the papers.

Now if the employee works for McDonalds, then its ok to run the story cause the guy was just talking about flipping burgers with no hair net.
Or the guy worked for a car shop, then it's ok to run the story cause the guy was talking about pouring used fluids down the drain instead of recycling it.

But lets just say the employee is a Palo Alto police officer, he was talking about breaking the law, violating civil rights, and about killing people. now it becomes a "hush-hush" story because in California you cant talk about the police? or release publicly the discipline he received?
Just keep saying it to yourself...

East Palo Alto

East
Palo Alto


Different city, different county...

But coming back around, it does happen here as well. The Palo Alto Daily Post has been running a series of articles, the latest of which mentioned this case.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/qws/ff/arc?term=luis+verbera&period=all&Submit=S

The article mostly focused on the fact that this officer was named, but not the most recent one convicted of DUI.

http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=18425

Search for DUI with your PDF reader.

The citizens of this city went so far as to ask the USDOJ for help in naming the officer. As far as I know, it has not happened yet. He/She is still on the job today.

BTW, the above Palo Alto City Council PDF also has this little snippet in it:

P.S.S. What great American (Founding Father???) said: "An Unarmed people is subject to slavery at any time." ? Can't wait for the 2nd Amendment rally to be held in Malcolm X Plaza (formerly Lytton Plaza) Saturday March 6-2010 11 am-1 pm. We need to support this rally and the folks who are staging it--they are standing up for our constitution big time!!!
Yay... :D

Also, page 83 has a letter from a Palo Alto High School sophmore, asking the city council why his Airsoft gun is illegal to use in Palo Alto, yet friends in surrounding communities can use theirs.
 
Top