Humanities desk
< September 13	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 14

Buying yourself out of the British Army

Our article Billy Bragg says:

After a few months, he bought his way out of the army for £175 and returned home, having finished his training, but not joining his regiment.

How does (or did) that work? A little Googling didn't help a lot; I found this British Army page that mentions "PVR Premature Voluntary Release", but there are no details, and we've no Premature Voluntary Release Wikipedia article. Our British Army page doesn't mention it. Can anyone point me to details? Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first Google esult for 'premature voluntary release' [1] (also in Bing but not quite so high up) has some details on this possibility in the modern day army context as well as other possibilities for release. The second result has a few details for the air force [2] and also on other possibilities of how one may be released from service at different stages. Nil Einne (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

did this guy get fired?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWjSOVDyUJ4&feature=related

cops do what ever they want and NEVER get FIRED....they always get some bs re-assignment and keep the same exact pay....now the guy doesnt even have to go on the streets anymore and he's still getting paid... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj650 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Pogan, the police officer in question, resigned from the force. He received a conditional discharge from the court. See [3]. He may have got off lightly but he didn't get off. He lost his job and a conditional discharge is still a criminal conviction. Exxolon (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an odd incident, though. I wonder what ticked Pogan off? You can clearly see that he picked out that cyclist a good bit down the road - he let a few other cyclists go past to get to that particular guy. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts involving Critical Mass#2008 bicycle rally and [4] has what appears to be the cop's defense. Note that he was cleared of assault, the charge he was convicted of was of falsying a criminal complaint in arresting the cyclist. Nil Einne (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that police never get fired is not true. It is true that they often do get what look like fairly reduced penalties, however. (And when this guy "resigns" on his own account, you can be sure that was determined by the guys at the top.) In general, policing the police is a difficult task. But there have been a number of cases like the one you've indicated where the prevalence of easy digital video (e.g. on cell phones) had made it much easier for hold police accountable for their actions. I seem to recall the New York Times having a big article on this awhile back; the general consensus is that this has been leading to some major shifts in police behavior, since it no longer is a "your word against mine" sort of situation. The difficulty with the videos, and what is probably in part responsible for the relatively light sentences, is that they fail to convey in most cases the broader context of the police activity. You see one minute of footage out of a much longer event, edited down to the explosively violent parts. It's not too hard for a good defense lawyer to say, "well, unfortunately you're not seeing the part where the victim brandished a weapon" and so forth. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another technological factor is that police cars in many jurisdictions are now equipped with video cameras (that's how we got to see how one of the 9/11 hijackers was stopped on a routine traffic matter a few days or weeks before their attacks). In theory this should serve several different purposes: documenting police conduct or misconduct, documenting a subject's conduct or miconduct, adding to the evidence for a good or bad stop or arrest (e.g. for drunk driving), and deterring misconduct. But the field of vision, usually out from a police car's windshield, can be limited, as can be the duration of taping relative to the whole time taken up by an incident. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true. It's also of note that police have been observed taping rallies/protests and other such things as well in greater numbers in the last few years, presumably so that if there are accusations of police misconduct, they will have their own video evidence to introduce. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very charitable interpretation. --Sean 15:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From half-listening to a network news broadcast last week, I understand that a misconduct/excessive force case against several Dallas (Texas) police officers includes the allegation that some cameras (presumably mounted on patrol cars) were intentionally diverted away from some of the disputed action. Not all of those accused, apparently, have escaped departmental or legal sanctions. Others may have much better and more-specific information. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An anecdote that demonstrates the assertion that "police never get fired" is absolutely false...

Our chief of police was driving down one of our country roads in his personal car, obeying the 45mph speed limit. A lady came up behind him and got mad that he was going too slow. She did something she had done many times in the past: She called 911 and said she was following a drunk driver. The chief heard the report on his radio, realized that it was him and the woman behind him was making the call. So, he stopped, got out of his car, and went back to talk to the lady. She immediately started screaming that a huge black man was trying to attack her. The chief knocked on her window and asked her to roll it down so he could talk to her because, from his point of view, she was breaking the law by making false reports on 911. She screamed more and claimed that he was trying to kill her. Other police arrived and the woman reported that the big black man was attempting to murder and rape her (even though her door was never opened). This whole thing hit the local newspapers, reporting only the woman's psychotic side of the story. In three days, the chief of police was forced to retire. The woman, of course, received absolutely no punishment and made another call to 911 the following week reporting a "drunk driver" in front of her. -- kainaw ™ 13:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't flash his badge at the woman's car door? He couldn't call/radio in his situation to the officers also responding to 911 before they arrived? If not: bad judgment, he should have resigned. If so: he had a case, if he resigned it was probably because he was ready to retire anyway or something. Should I have smalled all this as a side-discussion? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]