What is LEOBR and what does it actually provide to Police Officers? Well, here is a very basic definition: “The purpose of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights is to guarantee certain procedural safeguards to law enforcement officers during any investigation or interrogation or subsequent hearing that could lead to disciplinary action, demotion or dismissal.”
It’s not much different from the rights afforded to people accused of committing a crime. Never in a million years would we consider striping the accused of any rights afforded them. Those rights are called “Miranda Rights” and those rights are:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.”
Now, the accused have those rights to protect their constitutional rights after being charged/arrested with a crime, or more specifically:
“The driving purpose behind the Miranda Rights is to prevent law enforcement from forcing individuals being interrogated to incriminate themselves. The Miranda Rights were created to help defend the 5th Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and uphold the 6th Amendment right to counsel.”
These rights came about in June of 1966 when Ernesto Miranda was arrested and accused of robbery, kidnapping, and rape, in Arizona. The original conviction was over-turned due to allegedly intimidating police interrogation methods. After a retrial that included witnesses and other evidence, Miranda was again convicted. His trial was, then assured of being fair, and the original conviction was reasonably upheld without question. That’s just a brief history of the Miranda case, you should research it further.
While LEOBR isn’t exactly like that, it provides similar rights to police officers.
Now it’s completely obvious why a lot of Liberals would want to strip officers of those rights, they don’t like police officers. To them, it’s completely acceptable to make sure the accused are protected, but not the police. It’s become evidence Liberals have a strong dislike for Law Enforcement.
When I read that in Maryland 100% of Democrat’s voted to repeal LEOBR and hang police officers out to dry, I wasn’t shocked at all. What completely shocked and disappointed me was to find that 2 “Republicans” voted with the Democrats to repeal LEOBR as well.
One was Nicholaus R. Kipke, who represents District 31 including all of Pasadena, Brooklyn Park, and parts of Glen Burnie, Severna Park and Millersville. The other was Brenda J. Thiam, District 2B, which covers parts of Washington County.
40 other Republicans voted against repealing LEOBR, 40 no’s and 2 lone yes’s. I know very little about Kipke, but this is all I need to know about, and it’s not impressive. I have heard Mrs.Thiam, speak about how she is pro police. How does striping police officers of their protections fit in with a “pro-police” position?
As Brenda Thiam is a freshman Delegate, she might have needed guidance as to how to vote on such a delicate and important Bill. Did she recieve the best advice? Did she receive any advice? Clearly not, as only one other Republican (Kipke) voted with her, all the other Republicans voted the other way. Did she miss understand the bill or understand it’s significance? This is by no means an excuse. It’s possible she didn’t. She did turn around and vote NOT to over-ride the Governor’s veto of the repeal. Still, voting yes to repeal and then voting no to override a veto, is still a yes to the repeal. Is that what a “conservative, pro-police” Delegate would do?
I may not have a degree, but I do have a retired LEO in my family, I also have friends; a vote like this is important to them as well as me. It only took a small amount of research to learn why voting “Yes” to repeal was a very bad vote.
Votes like this only support anti-police progressive agenda politics and make an already extremely difficult job unnecessarily more difficult. It can’t be stated enough, don’t listen to what someone says, watch what they do, that’s how you learn what someone is truly about.
If you like what you see on The Tentacle, click Like and follow us on Facebook, Pinterest, Parler, Telegram and Gab. Remember to always share what you read. We can’t grow and continue to bring you community created information without your participation.
(The Tentacle invites the public to submit articles for posting. We are an equal opportunity platform. We will not edit your submission; however, we retain the right to reject any submission. All submissions must be no larger than 700 words. If you have something you’d like to say, send your submission to firstname.lastname@example.org)