Police unions are a massive part of the problem, because they allow officers to organize and project political power. Look at police union activity in New York City for how they've influenced elections and forced elected officials to back down from restricting police actions.
I agree that police officers closing ranks is an issue, and unions are a way for them to close ranks (and enforce this).
As mentioned in my edit, that is not the full story. Police have unions because they can exert so much pressure. Notice how places that have banned government unions make carve outs for the police. You reference their ability to influence elections, but you fail to mention how. It was by rioting in the streets. That is not an employment issue. That is a legal issue. Unions cannot talk you out of jail time.
Yes, and that's why I separate police unions from all other unions. I am not opposed to unions with the exception of the police union, and that's in no small part due to the fact that all of the other unions don't have members carrying firearms as part of their duties.
Other unions can though. Security guards immediately come to mind. Nurses unions have extreme control over who lives and dies technically. Weirdly, we don't have an issue with nurses murdering people and getting away with it. Unions are a tool. Cops are the problem. See the NOPD for a prime example of a police force so awful they got put in a consent decree and have never had a union.
When nurses go on strike at a hospital, they continue all care for the patients as though things were normal, because if they don't then the patient could suffer or die, and you don't become a nurse to make others suffer. What they do is stop recording things like billable services. I don't think I have indicated in any way that cops aren't the problem. I think the police unions act as a force amplifier, which is why I think they need to be broken first. I am fully cognizant that the best interaction I can have with a police person is neutral, and anything else is bad for me in some way.
You will never break the union until you break the police's stranglehold on politicians. Destroying the union will be seen as an attack on them. If you can do that then better to implement real reforms rather than just taking out the union.
The unions are what give the police a stranglehold on politician. They are the ones putting organized into organized crime, as long as a cop is the one doing the crime.
Again, we can see this is not true. Cops rioting is not a union activity. It is a crime. Same as the murder they get away with. Or the abuse. Or the theft. NOPD has the same stranglehold and abuse problems with no union. The union is a tool not the cause. Otherwise states that banned public service unions would not have a carve out for cops.
Police unions are a massive part of the problem, because they allow officers to organize and project political power. Look at police union activity in New York City for how they've influenced elections and forced elected officials to back down from restricting police actions.
I agree that police officers closing ranks is an issue, and unions are a way for them to close ranks (and enforce this).
As mentioned in my edit, that is not the full story. Police have unions because they can exert so much pressure. Notice how places that have banned government unions make carve outs for the police. You reference their ability to influence elections, but you fail to mention how. It was by rioting in the streets. That is not an employment issue. That is a legal issue. Unions cannot talk you out of jail time.
Yes, and that's why I separate police unions from all other unions. I am not opposed to unions with the exception of the police union, and that's in no small part due to the fact that all of the other unions don't have members carrying firearms as part of their duties.
Other unions can though. Security guards immediately come to mind. Nurses unions have extreme control over who lives and dies technically. Weirdly, we don't have an issue with nurses murdering people and getting away with it. Unions are a tool. Cops are the problem. See the NOPD for a prime example of a police force so awful they got put in a consent decree and have never had a union.
There's a very big difference between a security guard and a cop. Plenty of wannabe thugs go into both jobs, but only one has special standing when it comes to using force, all the usual defense doctrines like clear chance and proportional force are in place and they can't use any more force than a rando civilian. When a security guard shoots somebody (if their gun is even loaded, mine isn't), they need to have an absolutely impeccable reason and no alternative (and surprise: shit like "let them clean out the bank vault and gather information for the real cops" is often considered a valid alternative!). They'll be fired on the spot and the union will say they were fired for valid cause and they'll be on their own.
Meanwhile most cops who actually do find themselves charged still get their lawyers paid for and some continue to draw their paycheck while on leave until their conviction.
There are definitely differences between a cop union and a guard union. That difference isn't in carrying a gun, but in having special legal standing to fire that gun.
Yes this is literally the point I am making! Cop unions are not some special unicorn that no one else can replicate. The problem is with the job that has unionized.
Edit: Let me offer a different perspective. The argument is the unions have the power? Why because numbers? School staff union has 3,000,000 people compared to less than 800,000 cops total let alone in actual union. Teamsters, auto workers, steel workers, and more. Teachers alone, a second educator union, has more members than cops have jobs. A list for perusal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Largest_unions
So if it isn't membership, and it isn't funding I am curious why cop unions are special. If the answer involves an aspect of them being cops then we agree the union is the tool the cops are using and not the reason.
Police Unions are special because they act on behalf of capital, rather than on behalf of labor. As a union, if a New York City precinct commander is found to be corrupt, then union could pull together every other precinct to support this commander. One of the major issues with policing is how they will all band together to protect a cop, a union is a formalization of that relationship. Cops are able to create undue pressure on local leadership to prevents reforms of policing, and a union magnifies their ability to wield political pressure against the city or mayor or whomever;
Police unions are special because police are special. "special" meaning different here and not any positive meaning, just to be clear. As an organization it's politically powerful and commands public backing and just has a lot of actual power in the exercise of it's regular duties and has a long standing tradition on in-group loyalty. And you see this influence at work even when the police aren't unionized In a way that you don't with other professions.
Police unions are a massive part of the problem, because they allow officers to organize and project political power. Look at police union activity in New York City for how they've influenced elections and forced elected officials to back down from restricting police actions.
I agree that police officers closing ranks is an issue, and unions are a way for them to close ranks (and enforce this).
As mentioned in my edit, that is not the full story. Police have unions because they can exert so much pressure. Notice how places that have banned government unions make carve outs for the police. You reference their ability to influence elections, but you fail to mention how. It was by rioting in the streets. That is not an employment issue. That is a legal issue. Unions cannot talk you out of jail time.
Yes, and that's why I separate police unions from all other unions. I am not opposed to unions with the exception of the police union, and that's in no small part due to the fact that all of the other unions don't have members carrying firearms as part of their duties.
Other unions can though. Security guards immediately come to mind. Nurses unions have extreme control over who lives and dies technically. Weirdly, we don't have an issue with nurses murdering people and getting away with it. Unions are a tool. Cops are the problem. See the NOPD for a prime example of a police force so awful they got put in a consent decree and have never had a union.
When nurses go on strike at a hospital, they continue all care for the patients as though things were normal, because if they don't then the patient could suffer or die, and you don't become a nurse to make others suffer. What they do is stop recording things like billable services. I don't think I have indicated in any way that cops aren't the problem. I think the police unions act as a force amplifier, which is why I think they need to be broken first. I am fully cognizant that the best interaction I can have with a police person is neutral, and anything else is bad for me in some way.
You will never break the union until you break the police's stranglehold on politicians. Destroying the union will be seen as an attack on them. If you can do that then better to implement real reforms rather than just taking out the union.
The unions are what give the police a stranglehold on politician. They are the ones putting organized into organized crime, as long as a cop is the one doing the crime.
Again, we can see this is not true. Cops rioting is not a union activity. It is a crime. Same as the murder they get away with. Or the abuse. Or the theft. NOPD has the same stranglehold and abuse problems with no union. The union is a tool not the cause. Otherwise states that banned public service unions would not have a carve out for cops.
Police unions are a massive part of the problem, because they allow officers to organize and project political power. Look at police union activity in New York City for how they've influenced elections and forced elected officials to back down from restricting police actions.
I agree that police officers closing ranks is an issue, and unions are a way for them to close ranks (and enforce this).
As mentioned in my edit, that is not the full story. Police have unions because they can exert so much pressure. Notice how places that have banned government unions make carve outs for the police. You reference their ability to influence elections, but you fail to mention how. It was by rioting in the streets. That is not an employment issue. That is a legal issue. Unions cannot talk you out of jail time.
Yes, and that's why I separate police unions from all other unions. I am not opposed to unions with the exception of the police union, and that's in no small part due to the fact that all of the other unions don't have members carrying firearms as part of their duties.
Other unions can though. Security guards immediately come to mind. Nurses unions have extreme control over who lives and dies technically. Weirdly, we don't have an issue with nurses murdering people and getting away with it. Unions are a tool. Cops are the problem. See the NOPD for a prime example of a police force so awful they got put in a consent decree and have never had a union.
There's a very big difference between a security guard and a cop. Plenty of wannabe thugs go into both jobs, but only one has special standing when it comes to using force, all the usual defense doctrines like clear chance and proportional force are in place and they can't use any more force than a rando civilian. When a security guard shoots somebody (if their gun is even loaded, mine isn't), they need to have an absolutely impeccable reason and no alternative (and surprise: shit like "let them clean out the bank vault and gather information for the real cops" is often considered a valid alternative!). They'll be fired on the spot and the union will say they were fired for valid cause and they'll be on their own.
Meanwhile most cops who actually do find themselves charged still get their lawyers paid for and some continue to draw their paycheck while on leave until their conviction.
There are definitely differences between a cop union and a guard union. That difference isn't in carrying a gun, but in having special legal standing to fire that gun.
Yes this is literally the point I am making! Cop unions are not some special unicorn that no one else can replicate. The problem is with the job that has unionized.
Edit: Let me offer a different perspective. The argument is the unions have the power? Why because numbers? School staff union has 3,000,000 people compared to less than 800,000 cops total let alone in actual union. Teamsters, auto workers, steel workers, and more. Teachers alone, a second educator union, has more members than cops have jobs. A list for perusal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Largest_unions
So if it isn't membership, and it isn't funding I am curious why cop unions are special. If the answer involves an aspect of them being cops then we agree the union is the tool the cops are using and not the reason.
Police Unions are special because they act on behalf of capital, rather than on behalf of labor. As a union, if a New York City precinct commander is found to be corrupt, then union could pull together every other precinct to support this commander. One of the major issues with policing is how they will all band together to protect a cop, a union is a formalization of that relationship. Cops are able to create undue pressure on local leadership to prevents reforms of policing, and a union magnifies their ability to wield political pressure against the city or mayor or whomever;
Police unions are special because police are special. "special" meaning different here and not any positive meaning, just to be clear. As an organization it's politically powerful and commands public backing and just has a lot of actual power in the exercise of it's regular duties and has a long standing tradition on in-group loyalty. And you see this influence at work even when the police aren't unionized In a way that you don't with other professions.
Agreed. Per 10 USC 976, it is illegal for our militaries to unionize. I think the same should be applied to police forces, because of the special status and responsibilities they have.
Police unions are a massive part of the problem, because they allow officers to organize and project political power. Look at police union activity in New York City for how they've influenced elections and forced elected officials to back down from restricting police actions.
I agree that police officers closing ranks is an issue, and unions are a way for them to close ranks (and enforce this).
As mentioned in my edit, that is not the full story. Police have unions because they can exert so much pressure. Notice how places that have banned government unions make carve outs for the police. You reference their ability to influence elections, but you fail to mention how. It was by rioting in the streets. That is not an employment issue. That is a legal issue. Unions cannot talk you out of jail time.
Yes, and that's why I separate police unions from all other unions. I am not opposed to unions with the exception of the police union, and that's in no small part due to the fact that all of the other unions don't have members carrying firearms as part of their duties.
Other unions can though. Security guards immediately come to mind. Nurses unions have extreme control over who lives and dies technically. Weirdly, we don't have an issue with nurses murdering people and getting away with it. Unions are a tool. Cops are the problem. See the NOPD for a prime example of a police force so awful they got put in a consent decree and have never had a union.
When nurses go on strike at a hospital, they continue all care for the patients as though things were normal, because if they don't then the patient could suffer or die, and you don't become a nurse to make others suffer. What they do is stop recording things like billable services. I don't think I have indicated in any way that cops aren't the problem. I think the police unions act as a force amplifier, which is why I think they need to be broken first. I am fully cognizant that the best interaction I can have with a police person is neutral, and anything else is bad for me in some way.
You will never break the union until you break the police's stranglehold on politicians. Destroying the union will be seen as an attack on them. If you can do that then better to implement real reforms rather than just taking out the union.
The unions are what give the police a stranglehold on politician. They are the ones putting organized into organized crime, as long as a cop is the one doing the crime.
Again, we can see this is not true. Cops rioting is not a union activity. It is a crime. Same as the murder they get away with. Or the abuse. Or the theft. NOPD has the same stranglehold and abuse problems with no union. The union is a tool not the cause. Otherwise states that banned public service unions would not have a carve out for cops.
Police unions are a massive part of the problem, because they allow officers to organize and project political power. Look at police union activity in New York City for how they've influenced elections and forced elected officials to back down from restricting police actions.
I agree that police officers closing ranks is an issue, and unions are a way for them to close ranks (and enforce this).
As mentioned in my edit, that is not the full story. Police have unions because they can exert so much pressure. Notice how places that have banned government unions make carve outs for the police. You reference their ability to influence elections, but you fail to mention how. It was by rioting in the streets. That is not an employment issue. That is a legal issue. Unions cannot talk you out of jail time.
Yes, and that's why I separate police unions from all other unions. I am not opposed to unions with the exception of the police union, and that's in no small part due to the fact that all of the other unions don't have members carrying firearms as part of their duties.
Other unions can though. Security guards immediately come to mind. Nurses unions have extreme control over who lives and dies technically. Weirdly, we don't have an issue with nurses murdering people and getting away with it. Unions are a tool. Cops are the problem. See the NOPD for a prime example of a police force so awful they got put in a consent decree and have never had a union.
There's a very big difference between a security guard and a cop. Plenty of wannabe thugs go into both jobs, but only one has special standing when it comes to using force, all the usual defense doctrines like clear chance and proportional force are in place and they can't use any more force than a rando civilian. When a security guard shoots somebody (if their gun is even loaded, mine isn't), they need to have an absolutely impeccable reason and no alternative (and surprise: shit like "let them clean out the bank vault and gather information for the real cops" is often considered a valid alternative!). They'll be fired on the spot and the union will say they were fired for valid cause and they'll be on their own.
Meanwhile most cops who actually do find themselves charged still get their lawyers paid for and some continue to draw their paycheck while on leave until their conviction.
There are definitely differences between a cop union and a guard union. That difference isn't in carrying a gun, but in having special legal standing to fire that gun.
Yes this is literally the point I am making! Cop unions are not some special unicorn that no one else can replicate. The problem is with the job that has unionized.
Edit: Let me offer a different perspective. The argument is the unions have the power? Why because numbers? School staff union has 3,000,000 people compared to less than 800,000 cops total let alone in actual union. Teamsters, auto workers, steel workers, and more. Teachers alone, a second educator union, has more members than cops have jobs. A list for perusal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Largest_unions
So if it isn't membership, and it isn't funding I am curious why cop unions are special. If the answer involves an aspect of them being cops then we agree the union is the tool the cops are using and not the reason.
Police Unions are special because they act on behalf of capital, rather than on behalf of labor. As a union, if a New York City precinct commander is found to be corrupt, then union could pull together every other precinct to support this commander. One of the major issues with policing is how they will all band together to protect a cop, a union is a formalization of that relationship. Cops are able to create undue pressure on local leadership to prevents reforms of policing, and a union magnifies their ability to wield political pressure against the city or mayor or whomever;
Police unions are special because police are special. "special" meaning different here and not any positive meaning, just to be clear. As an organization it's politically powerful and commands public backing and just has a lot of actual power in the exercise of it's regular duties and has a long standing tradition on in-group loyalty. And you see this influence at work even when the police aren't unionized In a way that you don't with other professions.
Agreed. Per 10 USC 976, it is illegal for our militaries to unionize. I think the same should be applied to police forces, because of the special status and responsibilities they have.
I think we need to either have them be a military or not. This half in and half out method has caused nothing but problems. Things might not be better if they were officially militarized, but they would be different. I will take that at the moment.
The existence of unions affects even non-union parts of the industry. Like this is why we have weekends and child labor laws and such.
The fact that police unions are on the anti-labor side doesn't make this less true for them. Police unions have immense political power and are responsible for some pretty heinous legislation that also helps non-union cops avoid accountability. They also show the power of closing ranks; you don't NEED a union to enact the thin blue line bullshit; it just helps tamp down on rogues who grow a conscience.
Police unions are a massive part of the problem, because they allow officers to organize and project political power. Look at police union activity in New York City for how they've influenced elections and forced elected officials to back down from restricting police actions.
I agree that police officers closing ranks is an issue, and unions are a way for them to close ranks (and enforce this).
As mentioned in my edit, that is not the full story. Police have unions because they can exert so much pressure. Notice how places that have banned government unions make carve outs for the police. You reference their ability to influence elections, but you fail to mention how. It was by rioting in the streets. That is not an employment issue. That is a legal issue. Unions cannot talk you out of jail time.
Yes, and that's why I separate police unions from all other unions. I am not opposed to unions with the exception of the police union, and that's in no small part due to the fact that all of the other unions don't have members carrying firearms as part of their duties.
Other unions can though. Security guards immediately come to mind. Nurses unions have extreme control over who lives and dies technically. Weirdly, we don't have an issue with nurses murdering people and getting away with it. Unions are a tool. Cops are the problem. See the NOPD for a prime example of a police force so awful they got put in a consent decree and have never had a union.
When nurses go on strike at a hospital, they continue all care for the patients as though things were normal, because if they don't then the patient could suffer or die, and you don't become a nurse to make others suffer. What they do is stop recording things like billable services. I don't think I have indicated in any way that cops aren't the problem. I think the police unions act as a force amplifier, which is why I think they need to be broken first. I am fully cognizant that the best interaction I can have with a police person is neutral, and anything else is bad for me in some way.
You will never break the union until you break the police's stranglehold on politicians. Destroying the union will be seen as an attack on them. If you can do that then better to implement real reforms rather than just taking out the union.
The unions are what give the police a stranglehold on politician. They are the ones putting organized into organized crime, as long as a cop is the one doing the crime.
Again, we can see this is not true. Cops rioting is not a union activity. It is a crime. Same as the murder they get away with. Or the abuse. Or the theft. NOPD has the same stranglehold and abuse problems with no union. The union is a tool not the cause. Otherwise states that banned public service unions would not have a carve out for cops.
Police unions are a massive part of the problem, because they allow officers to organize and project political power. Look at police union activity in New York City for how they've influenced elections and forced elected officials to back down from restricting police actions.
I agree that police officers closing ranks is an issue, and unions are a way for them to close ranks (and enforce this).
As mentioned in my edit, that is not the full story. Police have unions because they can exert so much pressure. Notice how places that have banned government unions make carve outs for the police. You reference their ability to influence elections, but you fail to mention how. It was by rioting in the streets. That is not an employment issue. That is a legal issue. Unions cannot talk you out of jail time.
Yes, and that's why I separate police unions from all other unions. I am not opposed to unions with the exception of the police union, and that's in no small part due to the fact that all of the other unions don't have members carrying firearms as part of their duties.
Other unions can though. Security guards immediately come to mind. Nurses unions have extreme control over who lives and dies technically. Weirdly, we don't have an issue with nurses murdering people and getting away with it. Unions are a tool. Cops are the problem. See the NOPD for a prime example of a police force so awful they got put in a consent decree and have never had a union.
There's a very big difference between a security guard and a cop. Plenty of wannabe thugs go into both jobs, but only one has special standing when it comes to using force, all the usual defense doctrines like clear chance and proportional force are in place and they can't use any more force than a rando civilian. When a security guard shoots somebody (if their gun is even loaded, mine isn't), they need to have an absolutely impeccable reason and no alternative (and surprise: shit like "let them clean out the bank vault and gather information for the real cops" is often considered a valid alternative!). They'll be fired on the spot and the union will say they were fired for valid cause and they'll be on their own.
Meanwhile most cops who actually do find themselves charged still get their lawyers paid for and some continue to draw their paycheck while on leave until their conviction.
There are definitely differences between a cop union and a guard union. That difference isn't in carrying a gun, but in having special legal standing to fire that gun.
Yes this is literally the point I am making! Cop unions are not some special unicorn that no one else can replicate. The problem is with the job that has unionized.
Edit: Let me offer a different perspective. The argument is the unions have the power? Why because numbers? School staff union has 3,000,000 people compared to less than 800,000 cops total let alone in actual union. Teamsters, auto workers, steel workers, and more. Teachers alone, a second educator union, has more members than cops have jobs. A list for perusal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Largest_unions
So if it isn't membership, and it isn't funding I am curious why cop unions are special. If the answer involves an aspect of them being cops then we agree the union is the tool the cops are using and not the reason.
Police Unions are special because they act on behalf of capital, rather than on behalf of labor. As a union, if a New York City precinct commander is found to be corrupt, then union could pull together every other precinct to support this commander. One of the major issues with policing is how they will all band together to protect a cop, a union is a formalization of that relationship. Cops are able to create undue pressure on local leadership to prevents reforms of policing, and a union magnifies their ability to wield political pressure against the city or mayor or whomever;
Police unions are special because police are special. "special" meaning different here and not any positive meaning, just to be clear. As an organization it's politically powerful and commands public backing and just has a lot of actual power in the exercise of it's regular duties and has a long standing tradition on in-group loyalty. And you see this influence at work even when the police aren't unionized In a way that you don't with other professions.
Agreed. Per 10 USC 976, it is illegal for our militaries to unionize. I think the same should be applied to police forces, because of the special status and responsibilities they have.
I think we need to either have them be a military or not. This half in and half out method has caused nothing but problems. Things might not be better if they were officially militarized, but they would be different. I will take that at the moment.
Agreed on the "might not be better", but having a chain of command, rather than the tiny little fiefdoms would at least allow for some top down command.
Local sherrifs and PD's only being beholden to local governments that can easily be intimidated is rife in the US.
The existence of unions affects even non-union parts of the industry. Like this is why we have weekends and child labor laws and such.
The fact that police unions are on the anti-labor side doesn't make this less true for them. Police unions have immense political power and are responsible for some pretty heinous legislation that also helps non-union cops avoid accountability. They also show the power of closing ranks; you don't NEED a union to enact the thin blue line bullshit; it just helps tamp down on rogues who grow a conscience.
I don't think you need a union for the thin blue line is the catch. You need the us vs them mentality that has infected police forces that does not do the same to a typical union. It is well publicized that cops basically fear every person is trying to murder them at all times. You can see it in the killilogy nonsense, and the increasing militarization of police. They have all the mind set of a military force without any of the accountability.
Then you factor in that they are friends with the prosecutors and judges that would hold them accountable. That is before we get into copaganda and the assumption that the police tell the truth based on breathless reporting of the facts.
Reducing it down to unions and hand waving the rest does a massive disservice to solving the problem. The problem is complex and nuanced because of how the police can exert their force outside of the unions, and always have. Unionization of cops started en masse in the 70s I think, but brutality far predates that. The story of police brutality is one of slowly getting better is the fucked up part. Everything we see now? It has been done for longer than you have been alive, and it was worse before.
Edit: To put a more fine point on it, police unionizing in states was illegal until the 70s. You can look at the civil rights movement for how cops acted during and before that time.
Reducing it down to unions and hand waving the rest does a massive disservice to solving the problem. The problem is complex and nuanced because of how the police can exert their force outside of the unions, and always have. Unionization of cops started en masse in the 70s I think, but brutality far predates that. The story of police brutality is one of slowly getting better is the fucked up part. Everything we see now? It has been done for longer than you have been alive, and it was worse before.
Ma'am, this union discussion started out my response to WhiteZinfandel's dismissal of police violence as an issue. I used the union as an example of how police can organize and project their power, as well as protect themselves from accountability. You focused on my union comment and ignored the rest of the post when responded with:
You aren't one of those people who feel that cops already covers up the crimes their coworkers commit?
Point of order here, cops already cover up the crimes their coworkers commit, without this "substantial financial incentive" introduced.
Unless you're "not one of those people" who believe that cops are engaged in such widespread activity already, and have been for decades?
Do you not know what a saturation point is? I'm trying to find some way to interpret the things you said as being in good faith and the only answer I can come up with is that you don't know the phrase "saturation point."
Yes, some cops already cover up the crimes their coworkers commit. Not all do. If you introduce an incentive for more to do so, say by making it so that failing to cover up other cops' crimes would get one's pay and/or operational budget slashed, more cops would do so. There are other dynamics to consider in the final analysis, but this one is pretty cut and dry.
The cops that dont cover other cops crimes get killed during training seminars and stuff, just saying. Its not a few bad apples, its a systemic problem.
A ) Citation needed.
B ) That doesn't make any sense if you napkin-math it out. There are, depending on the source you look at, somewhere in the neighborhood of 600,000 to 800,000 law enforcement personnel in the USA. Let's call it 800,000. And then let's say average turnover rate is 14%, because that's what comes up on google. So to maintain that population about 112,000 people need to join each year. The number of police deaths each year fluctuates, but let's put it at 200. That puts the death rate at ~0.18% of the new recruits each year. So if you assume ALL of those deaths are the good cops dying in "training seminars and stuff" (which is a stupidly generous assumption but we're doing napkin math here to prove a point) and there are no good cops surviving (which is what you said), that means... in order for what you said to be true, it would have to be the case that no more than about one in five hundred fifty new cops are unwilling to cover for another cop's crime. I know this thread leans pretty hard into pessimism, but come the fuck on.
I know it's not exactly what you're saying but it sounds a bit like saying we can't meaningfully punish bad behavior because that creates an incentive to hide the behavior.
I mean we just put six cops in prison for one to four decades apiece, so we clearly can meaningfully punish bad behavior. No need to resort to group punishment.
For a citation, I present the preceding 56 pages of this thread. Just pick a section at random and you can read about all of the fuckery that the police get up to constantly. All cops in the US are part of police unions, and police unions close ranks whenever there is ever an officer that acts out of line. On top of that, look at the recent history of whistleblowers in the US. Folks are getting murdered for outing private companies, much less an organization with hundreds of thousands of members where the majority care a firearm as part of their duty, and many own their own private firearms as well.
If you support a police union as an officer, then you are supporting the coverups those unions are involved with. If you don't support the police union, you won't be a cop for long. Because you'll either be pressured out, fired under false circumstances, or in some cases even killed.
Also note that it is police organizations that prevent a lot of statistics regarding policing activities from being made public, or even from being recorded.
All cops are not in a union. They just close ranks. It is mutual support. The union is not the problem. The cops are.
I don't disagree that the cops are the problem, and have stated so several times. But I'm still getting attacked and treated as if my only objection to the police were that they are unionized, when my objections are due to how they are able to commit violence (physical, social, financial, etc) without or with very limited repercussions. The unions are a significant part of how they are able to organize and project more power than a single officer or precinct could, as well as being an official way for them to close ranks and provide mutual support.
We're on the same side on this topic, and I don't understand the hostility at all. Unless you happen to think that the police unions don't contribute to the problem, which I doubt.
Reducing it down to unions and hand waving the rest does a massive disservice to solving the problem. The problem is complex and nuanced because of how the police can exert their force outside of the unions, and always have. Unionization of cops started en masse in the 70s I think, but brutality far predates that. The story of police brutality is one of slowly getting better is the fucked up part. Everything we see now? It has been done for longer than you have been alive, and it was worse before.
Ma'am, this union discussion started out my response to WhiteZinfandel's dismissal of police violence as an issue. I used the union as an example of how police can organize and project their power, as well as protect themselves from accountability. You focused on my union comment and ignored the rest of the post when responded with:
You aren't one of those people who feel that cops already covers up the crimes their coworkers commit?
Point of order here, cops already cover up the crimes their coworkers commit, without this "substantial financial incentive" introduced.
Unless you're "not one of those people" who believe that cops are engaged in such widespread activity already, and have been for decades?
Do you not know what a saturation point is? I'm trying to find some way to interpret the things you said as being in good faith and the only answer I can come up with is that you don't know the phrase "saturation point."
Yes, some cops already cover up the crimes their coworkers commit. Not all do. If you introduce an incentive for more to do so, say by making it so that failing to cover up other cops' crimes would get one's pay and/or operational budget slashed, more cops would do so. There are other dynamics to consider in the final analysis, but this one is pretty cut and dry.
The cops that dont cover other cops crimes get killed during training seminars and stuff, just saying. Its not a few bad apples, its a systemic problem.
A ) Citation needed.
B ) That doesn't make any sense if you napkin-math it out. There are, depending on the source you look at, somewhere in the neighborhood of 600,000 to 800,000 law enforcement personnel in the USA. Let's call it 800,000. And then let's say average turnover rate is 14%, because that's what comes up on google. So to maintain that population about 112,000 people need to join each year. The number of police deaths each year fluctuates, but let's put it at 200. That puts the death rate at ~0.18% of the new recruits each year. So if you assume ALL of those deaths are the good cops dying in "training seminars and stuff" (which is a stupidly generous assumption but we're doing napkin math here to prove a point) and there are no good cops surviving (which is what you said), that means... in order for what you said to be true, it would have to be the case that no more than about one in five hundred fifty new cops are unwilling to cover for another cop's crime. I know this thread leans pretty hard into pessimism, but come the fuck on.
I know it's not exactly what you're saying but it sounds a bit like saying we can't meaningfully punish bad behavior because that creates an incentive to hide the behavior.
I mean we just put six cops in prison for one to four decades apiece, so we clearly can meaningfully punish bad behavior. No need to resort to group punishment.
For a citation, I present the preceding 56 pages of this thread. Just pick a section at random and you can read about all of the fuckery that the police get up to constantly. All cops in the US are part of police unions, and police unions close ranks whenever there is ever an officer that acts out of line. On top of that, look at the recent history of whistleblowers in the US. Folks are getting murdered for outing private companies, much less an organization with hundreds of thousands of members where the majority care a firearm as part of their duty, and many own their own private firearms as well.
If you support a police union as an officer, then you are supporting the coverups those unions are involved with. If you don't support the police union, you won't be a cop for long. Because you'll either be pressured out, fired under false circumstances, or in some cases even killed.
Also note that it is police organizations that prevent a lot of statistics regarding policing activities from being made public, or even from being recorded.
All cops are not in a union. They just close ranks. It is mutual support. The union is not the problem. The cops are.
I don't disagree that the cops are the problem, and have stated so several times. But I'm still getting attacked and treated as if my only objection to the police were that they are unionized, when my objections are due to how they are able to commit violence (physical, social, financial, etc) without or with very limited repercussions. The unions are a significant part of how they are able to organize and project more power than a single officer or precinct could, as well as being an official way for them to close ranks and provide mutual support.
We're on the same side on this topic, and I don't understand the hostility at all. Unless you happen to think that the police unions don't contribute to the problem, which I doubt.
No hostility, and I apologize if it comes off that way. Passion certainly. I never intended to make you feel like I was attacking you. I have tried to mention I do agree it is one element of how the project power where available. Significant? Yes. Primary factor? No, not that far.
I do get where I come off very strongly. I have been banging the drum of cups are shit for 30 years now. I have a lot of pent up fire and rage. I have been thrilled by the modern movement and feel this overwhelming urge to use it as much as I can.
The unions really don’t need to be broken as long as we can continue with convincing the courts holding police accountable.
Which is where the disconnect seems to have begun with the courts creating qualified immunity out of nothing and then expanding it without regard to the repercussions. They didnt need unions for that.
If the courts can hold bad police accountable when caught and we can expand accountability to both superiors who don’t remove problematic officers as well as any fellow officers who turn a blind eye or fail to intervene or report, then the police would shortly become unrecognized to what they are today.
The unions really don’t need to be broken as long as we can continue with convincing the courts holding police accountable.
Which is where the disconnect seems to have begun with the courts creating qualified immunity out of nothing and then expanding it without regard to the repercussions. They didnt need unions for that.
If the courts can hold bad police accountable when caught and we can expand accountability to both superiors who don’t remove problematic officers as well as any fellow officers who turn a blind eye or fail to intervene or report, then the police would shortly become unrecognized to what they are today.
Which is why when NYC tried to implement accountability to non-police boards - the NYPD rioted.
Police Unions should be fine if they are limited to employment concerns, like wages and overtime. They should represent police officer against the force, not the force against the citizens.
NYPD officers are very stressed about all the overtime they have to do but the union seems curiously powerless to protect them from that, but very powerful to protect them if they are suspected of breaking the law. It should be the other way around.
Bullshit NYPD is stressed about overtime. They fucking love filing for overtime. Stand around in the subway on your phone all day and then go arrest someone 5 minutes before your shift is up for some easy overtime.
Bullshit NYPD is stressed about overtime. They fucking love filing for overtime. Stand around in the subway on your phone all day and then go arrest someone 5 minutes before your shift is up for some easy overtime.
Also a huge part of police overtime is showing up in traffic court where they barely have to do anything. A lot of industries have high overtime and strangely related medical and safety problems are not statistically notable in police like they are in truck drivers, nurses, factory workers, etc.
+4
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Bullshit NYPD is stressed about overtime. They fucking love filing for overtime. Stand around in the subway on your phone all day and then go arrest someone 5 minutes before your shift is up for some easy overtime.
Yeah, abusing overtime is practically the favorite pasttime of cops nation-wide. At best, they're around doing fuck-all to earn anything. Commonly, they just straight-up falsely report it.
All cop unions should be dissolved and banned. No organization that exists to perform violence legally should also be backed by a union, it's simply far too much concentration of power and encouragement of corruption.
I've around a very long time, and read through this and previous incarnations from cover to cover.
It used to be commonly said that there were bad cops, and 'good' cops who covered for or turned a blind eye to the bad cops, thus making them bad cops as well.
'There are no good cops, they were all killed in training seminars' is a new take on this.
I don't need to be convinced that there are police who abuse their power, take advantage of situations, and otherwise act as a gang with robust legal protections that they are commonly described as.
'There are a (googled) 708,000 bad cops and 0 good cops because the bad ones killed them' is a bit of an escalation from the previous rhetoric.
Fantomas did not say they were all killed in training seminars. That was a specific example of the "stuff" that happens to "good cops."
To go back to what was actually said:
The cops that dont cover other cops crimes get killed during training seminars and stuff, just saying. Its not a few bad apples, its a systemic problem.
They aren't all murdered, but good cops are systemically forced out. Sometimes they're beaten within an inch of their life. Sometimes they are involuntary committed. Sometimes they call for backup and it never comes so they are left bleeding out. Sometimes they just have their lives made miserable through constant harassment until they quit.
I think there's a 4th way, and that's some cops aren't good or bad per se, they're just people who haven't been faced with the situation that crystallizes their stance. I've known a couple of cops who were good people. Knew a detective who really wanted to make a positive difference, and it's still a truth that there are plenty of actual criminals out there committing actual real-ass crimes.
All these people had the luxury, sometimes over many years, of not needing to face the question of whether they'd have to choose between the force and what's right and moral. BLM changed a lot of that - one quit, one looked the other way and then retired with a lot of excuses, one turned out to be garbage. Over time, the good cops don't often get to rise, and even when they do, it's with asterisks AND with resistance from entrenched power that protects the shitass majority.
Also fuck police unions in particular, and anything else that helps them organize, concentrate money, and exert political power as a group. Not only are they bad, they're catastrophically bad and should be illegal. Fuck police unions, fuck fraternal orders, speaking openly about politics of any sort in their capacity as a government official wielding the state monopoly on violence should be an ethics violation that gets them investigated by an independent body.
Cops, in their official capacity as officers of the government, can shut the fuck up forever.
Bullshit NYPD is stressed about overtime. They fucking love filing for overtime. Stand around in the subway on your phone all day and then go arrest someone 5 minutes before your shift is up for some easy overtime.
Yeah, abusing overtime is practically the favorite pasttime of cops nation-wide. At best, they're around doing fuck-all to earn anything. Commonly, they just straight-up falsely report it.
All cop unions should be dissolved and banned. No organization that exists to perform violence legally should also be backed by a union, it's simply far too much concentration of power and encouragement of corruption.
no organized, armed, officially sanctioned group of Executive branch enforcers should be allowed to say a god damned word about who their boss is. No collection of individuals should be allowed to band together to collectively defend the Executive enforcement branch against the Judicial branch or the citizens themselves.
I mean, y'all probably know I don't have a lot of nice things to say about unionization in general though I'll admit I'm coming around on this. I've got even less pleasant things to say about public sector unions, but again, increasingly flexible. Police unions though?
Hell fucking no. Ban them all! Police unionization is 100% corrosive to the public good.
Two MN reporters won a 1.2 million settlement after being attacked by cops in 2020.
One of the more blatant ones too
Even though they were wearing credentials, carrying media equipment and identified themselves as press, the journalists said, the troopers then backed them and other media personnel into a corner against a wall and began firing projectiles and pepper-spraying the group.
Two MN reporters won a 1.2 million settlement after being attacked by cops in 2020.
One of the more blatant ones too
Even though they were wearing credentials, carrying media equipment and identified themselves as press, the journalists said, the troopers then backed them and other media personnel into a corner against a wall and began firing projectiles and pepper-spraying the group.
Can't access the site.
Are the cops still employed as cops? Either by the same department, or Catholic Church'd to another one.
If so, it's not a win. Glad they got compensation, but if they're still carrying a badge, just means they're gonna continue to be assholes.
Bullshit NYPD is stressed about overtime. They fucking love filing for overtime. Stand around in the subway on your phone all day and then go arrest someone 5 minutes before your shift is up for some easy overtime.
Yeah, abusing overtime is practically the favorite pasttime of cops nation-wide. At best, they're around doing fuck-all to earn anything. Commonly, they just straight-up falsely report it.
All cop unions should be dissolved and banned. No organization that exists to perform violence legally should also be backed by a union, it's simply far too much concentration of power and encouragement of corruption.
no organized, armed, officially sanctioned group of Executive branch enforcers should be allowed to say a god damned word about who their boss is. No collection of individuals should be allowed to band together to collectively defend the Executive enforcement branch against the Judicial branch or the citizens themselves.
I mean, y'all probably know I don't have a lot of nice things to say about unionization in general though I'll admit I'm coming around on this. I've got even less pleasant things to say about public sector unions, but again, increasingly flexible. Police unions though?
Hell fucking no. Ban them all! Police unionization is 100% corrosive to the public good.
And here I am on the other end, super pro-labor, multiple elected terms as president of my local, lead negotiator of eight, 8-figure/p.a. collective bargaining agreements: you should not get to unionize if you wield state violence. Not in some metaphorical words-can-be-violence sense, but in the pew-pew sense.
I don't think the military, police, or prison guards should be unionized. Not because I want the police to be more like the military (other way please!), but rather for the same underlying reason. It defeats civilian control of the enforcers which is a real godsdamn problem.
It might be that if a group is already politically powerful, it shouldn't unionize, as that would amplify its power further
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
To be put in the continuing category of "Things were much worse than our wildest expectations".
Remember in 2022 when San Bernardino sheriffs were trying to locate a 15 year old girl who had been kidnapped by her father? Remember that?
Do you also remember that she was killed in the process of being rescued? At first the cops blamed the father, then they blamed her, and claimed (among other fantastical elements) that she was wearing heavily armored tactical gear when exiting her father's vehicle?
And to back up all of those claims, the CHP and sheriffs department immediately hid all of the available footage they had, claiming it didn't exist.
Now, two years and several lawsuits later the footage has been "found" and released by a journalist. Please note that it wasn't to the family of the victim. It wasn't to the court for review. It was first released to a journalist. That's just the extra special shit cherry on top of this incredible shit sundae.
But on Friday, the department disclosed nearly a dozen video files to the independent journalist Joey Scott, who filed records requests 18 months prior. The clips – which were shared with the Guardian and include helicopter footage – show deputies shooting at Savannah as she followed their instructions to move toward them. The videos also suggest deputies shot her after two officers remarked that it was the girl who exited. The footage, and the sheriff’s narration of the video, further make clear she was killed by deputies, not her father.
It gets even better in that there are literal portions of the tapes missing:
Savannah was pronounced dead at a hospital. Anthony was also shot by deputies and died at the scene, though the clips do not make clear when that happened. It is also unclear how many officers shot Savannah and how many bullets hit her. The department said Savannah was wearing “tactical gear and a helmet” when she exited, but the footage doesn’t clearly capture her outfit.
The evidence released last week also does not make clear who fired at police from inside Graziano’s vehicle. The sheriff’s department has suggested that Graziano was firing at officers, and that it’s possible Savannah also did. The department said “this aspect” of the incident remains under investigation.
And finally:
Sharon Brunner, a civil rights lawyer in San Bernardino county, reviewed the footage for the Guardian and said it appeared no one was in charge of coordinating the officers’ strategy. She said it was possible there was “contagious” fire, with deputies’ own shots encouraging others to fire. “San Bernardino county does not train law enforcement to handle these high-stress situations appropriately. They have a very brutal approach of shoot first, ask questions later,” she said.
In summary: Kidnapped child was murdered by an incompetent police department who had no business being the ones to try to resolve with no one willing to be in charge of said situation. It looks like the sheriffs wanted a shoot out, so they engineered a bad situation into their desired shoot out, and then executed two people as part of having said shoot out.
Maybe her father did kidnap her. Maybe he did try to get away. Maybe not. We'll never know the full extent of what was going on because the police decided to out and out murder the two of them and then decided to hide as much as they could for as long as they could.
Just so you know, the two year delay is just about long enough to run out the statue of limitations on 1983 claims in California. Funny how all of the timing works out on this, isn't it?
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
+21
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
"Come here! Come to me, come to me!” the officer shouts in a belt recording. In an accompanying aerial surveillance video, Savannah is then seen walking towards the deputy. Gunfire continues, and officers positioned at a different angle shoot Savannah.
The audio shows that the officer screamed for his fellow officers to stop shooting at her: “STOP! STOP shooting her!,” he screamed, adding that the girl’s father, who was wanted for killing the girl’s mother, was still in the car. “He’s in the car, stop! She’s OK! He’s in the car! Stop!”
"Come here! Come to me, come to me!” the officer shouts in a belt recording. In an accompanying aerial surveillance video, Savannah is then seen walking towards the deputy. Gunfire continues, and officers positioned at a different angle shoot Savannah.
The audio shows that the officer screamed for his fellow officers to stop shooting at her: “STOP! STOP shooting her!,” he screamed, adding that the girl’s father, who was wanted for killing the girl’s mother, was still in the car. “He’s in the car, stop! She’s OK! He’s in the car! Stop!”
Yeah, I don't think I'm going to read the article, because there's only so sad and angry I can be, and I'm pretty confident that'll exceed my acceptable depression and rage levels.
Just so you know, the two year delay is just about long enough to run out the statue of limitations on 1983 claims in California. Funny how all of the timing works out on this, isn't it?
One thing, how the fuck is there only a two year statute of limitations on this? It happened in 2022, not 1983? I'm confused. And angry. And sad.
"Come here! Come to me, come to me!” the officer shouts in a belt recording. In an accompanying aerial surveillance video, Savannah is then seen walking towards the deputy. Gunfire continues, and officers positioned at a different angle shoot Savannah.
The audio shows that the officer screamed for his fellow officers to stop shooting at her: “STOP! STOP shooting her!,” he screamed, adding that the girl’s father, who was wanted for killing the girl’s mother, was still in the car. “He’s in the car, stop! She’s OK! He’s in the car! Stop!”
Yeah, I don't think I'm going to read the article, because there's only so sad and angry I can be, and I'm pretty confident that'll exceed my acceptable depression and rage levels.
Just so you know, the two year delay is just about long enough to run out the statue of limitations on 1983 claims in California. Funny how all of the timing works out on this, isn't it?
One thing, how the fuck is there only a two year statute of limitations on this? It happened in 2022, not 1983? I'm confused. And angry. And sad.
I'm referring to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claims. In particular these are pretty much the only exception one can score against the police's qualified immunity claims. While there's no federal statute of limitations, each state is free to set their own. California has set theirs for two years.
Not sure exactly when the clock started for this incident, but it does give the sheriff's department a goal to drag things out for. And would you look at that? It's been nearly two years since this happened and now the evidence of their incompetence comes out right before the clock runs out on getting the lawsuit into court.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
The lawsuit also accused Hutchinson of retaliation... allegedly threatening to "fire his entire Command Staff and Chief of staff for insubordination and take other actions to ‘address’ the ‘insubordination.’"
The accusations also include Hutchinson making threats to the accusers, warning that "karma would get them" and to "watch their six," the lawsuit adds.
The lawsuit explains: "He was also openly ... talked about killing people who crossed him, often dangerously waving his loaded service weapon around while doing so. Hutchinson was allowed to engage in this abhorrent behavior with impunity for several years."
The obvious issue is that this was unlikely his first time lashing out.
That it was tolerated, likely on multiple occasions over much of his tenure as Sherrif (and likely before), probably exacerbated this shit.
You don't really just become that guy overnight. He has probably been like this much of his career, but the code of silence endemic to law enforcement allowed him to become sheriff for a metro area with a million people.
This came out on Friday, but it's an ongoing situation.
Former Washburn, Maine Police Sgt. Chandler Cole was arrested and is currently out on bail for allegedly falsifying records and lying on a police report. What did he lie about? That he dropped Erik Foote off at a local hospital for evaluation sometime on January 29th or 30th. The problem is that Erik hasn't been seen or heard from since having lunch with his mother on the 29th. People have reported sighting around the same time, but no trace of Erik has been found since then. Chandler has proven to be the biggest blockage in this story thus far, electing to remain silent about why he lied on his report and accept being fired instead of illuminating the situation. He was so quiet about the situation that he allowed his uniform to be literally cut off him instead of doing anything.
As far as I can tell, this is a situation where if the former officer did interact, did so in some malicious way. But how malicious? Hard to know at this point. And again, that's a pretty large "if" we're looking at here. It could very well be the case that Chandler didn't do a damn thing and made up the whole interaction.
The problem is that he isn't talking and doesn't want to talk.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
This sounds almost identical to that case in Florida we talked about a few weeks ago where the cop was fired for a series of false statements during investigations as well as purposeful dereliction, where he was the last person to see several people alive and would not discuss the case with investigators
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I come bearing the ever so slightest of good news that still ends in a sour taste, sorry, can only do so much. A police officer has resigned after internal audits of bodycam footage showed aggressive behavior and numerous violations of policy and process.
Harris says the department was conducting body cam audits and found Forgey repeatedly made misrepresentations and embellishments, and was short, rude and often cursed at people.
Seems...minimal, however, whatever they did find was beyond damning cause it led to his
According to Chief Troy Harris, West Lafayette Police Department and the Tippecanoe County Prosecutor's Office are dropping all cases involving Officer Jake Forgey.
...
Harris says Forgey's behavior was enough to question his overall integrity.
After meeting with the prosecutor, they agreed to drop all pending cases involving the officer.
Yeah, they effectively nuked this man's entire career as a police officer as best they could, past and present.
Harris couldn't say how many cases but noted Forgey was very active.
A followup came out yesterday and it turns out we finally have that number.
In a statement, West Lafayette Police Chief Troy Harris says, "We all have individuals in our lives who make mistakes, that doesn't make them horrible people, but we must hold them accountable. Jake Forgey is a good man that made some regrettable errors and I wish him the best."
I was curious, because the article states "short-lived career". Turns out they knew exactly how long and were avoiding it, cause they're the goddamn ones that reported on his hiring anyways
June, 2022. 76 cases to be dismissed, spanning less than 2 years. And it should be a lot worse, because this isn't his first law enforcement job.
Forgey has previous law enforcement experience. He comes to West Lafayette after serving as a deputy with the Miami County Sheriff's Department for the past three years. He also worked for two years in the Miami County Jail and another three years prior to that as a Cass County dispatcher.
Forgey says working as an officer in this large of a department is a dream come true.
"In high school, I really didn't know. I wasn't sure what I wanted to do,” Forgey said. “It wasn't until my junior year... I took a criminal justice class. I got to do a couple ride alongs and I was like, ‘This is it.’ There was nothing that suited me better than being a police officer."
It's just 99% of cops that make the rest look bad.
Thankfully this happened before a fatal incident occured.
While the Chief is being a bit wishy washy, I gotta figure that he's balancing getting things done, vs the likely revolt by his department that'll see him ousted, if he didn't. I'd rather that a stronger stance was taken, but I can understand the politics of it, and if he continues to oust troublesome officers, that's better than the likely raging killology dipshit that'd replace him if he got the arse.
Sounds like 2 to 3 years is about his average to jump to another law enforcement job. I'm reminded how the catholic church likes to pass pedos around as it seems like law enforcement likes to do similar with these assholes
He'll find some place to continue working law enforcement
Sounds like 2 to 3 years is about his average to jump to another law enforcement job. I'm reminded how the catholic church likes to pass pedos around as it seems like law enforcement likes to do similar with these assholes
He'll find some place to continue working law enforcement
Now that his name is out there, here's hoping that those that get abused do a google search, a d there's enough public pressure in his new locality that he's forced out.
I'm all for forgiveness. But there are several professions were a significant enough breach of public trust, by severity or repetition (this clearly wasn't one incident) should void working in that industry again.
There should be some TV show where the main characters are from Internal Investigation.
Have them try their best, meet a wall of silence and ambivalence and corruption, not really succeed, and end each episode saying "this case is totally not based on this case, because the real life case is even sadder".
Maybe just flash forward some of the cases where someone gets taken to court and say "he got transferred to another place /shrug shoulders".
Posts
Police unions are special because police are special. "special" meaning different here and not any positive meaning, just to be clear. As an organization it's politically powerful and commands public backing and just has a lot of actual power in the exercise of it's regular duties and has a long standing tradition on in-group loyalty. And you see this influence at work even when the police aren't unionized In a way that you don't with other professions.
Agreed. Per 10 USC 976, it is illegal for our militaries to unionize. I think the same should be applied to police forces, because of the special status and responsibilities they have.
I think we need to either have them be a military or not. This half in and half out method has caused nothing but problems. Things might not be better if they were officially militarized, but they would be different. I will take that at the moment.
The fact that police unions are on the anti-labor side doesn't make this less true for them. Police unions have immense political power and are responsible for some pretty heinous legislation that also helps non-union cops avoid accountability. They also show the power of closing ranks; you don't NEED a union to enact the thin blue line bullshit; it just helps tamp down on rogues who grow a conscience.
Agreed on the "might not be better", but having a chain of command, rather than the tiny little fiefdoms would at least allow for some top down command.
Local sherrifs and PD's only being beholden to local governments that can easily be intimidated is rife in the US.
I don't think you need a union for the thin blue line is the catch. You need the us vs them mentality that has infected police forces that does not do the same to a typical union. It is well publicized that cops basically fear every person is trying to murder them at all times. You can see it in the killilogy nonsense, and the increasing militarization of police. They have all the mind set of a military force without any of the accountability.
Then you factor in that they are friends with the prosecutors and judges that would hold them accountable. That is before we get into copaganda and the assumption that the police tell the truth based on breathless reporting of the facts.
Reducing it down to unions and hand waving the rest does a massive disservice to solving the problem. The problem is complex and nuanced because of how the police can exert their force outside of the unions, and always have. Unionization of cops started en masse in the 70s I think, but brutality far predates that. The story of police brutality is one of slowly getting better is the fucked up part. Everything we see now? It has been done for longer than you have been alive, and it was worse before.
Edit: To put a more fine point on it, police unionizing in states was illegal until the 70s. You can look at the civil rights movement for how cops acted during and before that time.
Ma'am, this union discussion started out my response to WhiteZinfandel's dismissal of police violence as an issue. I used the union as an example of how police can organize and project their power, as well as protect themselves from accountability. You focused on my union comment and ignored the rest of the post when responded with:
I don't disagree that the cops are the problem, and have stated so several times. But I'm still getting attacked and treated as if my only objection to the police were that they are unionized, when my objections are due to how they are able to commit violence (physical, social, financial, etc) without or with very limited repercussions. The unions are a significant part of how they are able to organize and project more power than a single officer or precinct could, as well as being an official way for them to close ranks and provide mutual support.
We're on the same side on this topic, and I don't understand the hostility at all. Unless you happen to think that the police unions don't contribute to the problem, which I doubt.
No hostility, and I apologize if it comes off that way. Passion certainly. I never intended to make you feel like I was attacking you. I have tried to mention I do agree it is one element of how the project power where available. Significant? Yes. Primary factor? No, not that far.
I do get where I come off very strongly. I have been banging the drum of cups are shit for 30 years now. I have a lot of pent up fire and rage. I have been thrilled by the modern movement and feel this overwhelming urge to use it as much as I can.
Which is where the disconnect seems to have begun with the courts creating qualified immunity out of nothing and then expanding it without regard to the repercussions. They didnt need unions for that.
If the courts can hold bad police accountable when caught and we can expand accountability to both superiors who don’t remove problematic officers as well as any fellow officers who turn a blind eye or fail to intervene or report, then the police would shortly become unrecognized to what they are today.
MWO: Adamski
Which is why when NYC tried to implement accountability to non-police boards - the NYPD rioted.
Literally.
NYPD officers are very stressed about all the overtime they have to do but the union seems curiously powerless to protect them from that, but very powerful to protect them if they are suspected of breaking the law. It should be the other way around.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Also a huge part of police overtime is showing up in traffic court where they barely have to do anything. A lot of industries have high overtime and strangely related medical and safety problems are not statistically notable in police like they are in truck drivers, nurses, factory workers, etc.
Yeah, abusing overtime is practically the favorite pasttime of cops nation-wide. At best, they're around doing fuck-all to earn anything. Commonly, they just straight-up falsely report it.
All cop unions should be dissolved and banned. No organization that exists to perform violence legally should also be backed by a union, it's simply far too much concentration of power and encouragement of corruption.
All these people had the luxury, sometimes over many years, of not needing to face the question of whether they'd have to choose between the force and what's right and moral. BLM changed a lot of that - one quit, one looked the other way and then retired with a lot of excuses, one turned out to be garbage. Over time, the good cops don't often get to rise, and even when they do, it's with asterisks AND with resistance from entrenched power that protects the shitass majority.
Cops, in their official capacity as officers of the government, can shut the fuck up forever.
no organized, armed, officially sanctioned group of Executive branch enforcers should be allowed to say a god damned word about who their boss is. No collection of individuals should be allowed to band together to collectively defend the Executive enforcement branch against the Judicial branch or the citizens themselves.
I mean, y'all probably know I don't have a lot of nice things to say about unionization in general though I'll admit I'm coming around on this. I've got even less pleasant things to say about public sector unions, but again, increasingly flexible. Police unions though?
Hell fucking no. Ban them all! Police unionization is 100% corrosive to the public good.
Two MN reporters won a 1.2 million settlement after being attacked by cops in 2020.
One of the more blatant ones too
Can't access the site.
Are the cops still employed as cops? Either by the same department, or Catholic Church'd to another one.
If so, it's not a win. Glad they got compensation, but if they're still carrying a badge, just means they're gonna continue to be assholes.
And here I am on the other end, super pro-labor, multiple elected terms as president of my local, lead negotiator of eight, 8-figure/p.a. collective bargaining agreements: you should not get to unionize if you wield state violence. Not in some metaphorical words-can-be-violence sense, but in the pew-pew sense.
I don't think the military, police, or prison guards should be unionized. Not because I want the police to be more like the military (other way please!), but rather for the same underlying reason. It defeats civilian control of the enforcers which is a real godsdamn problem.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Horrifying and not at all surprising.
Remember in 2022 when San Bernardino sheriffs were trying to locate a 15 year old girl who had been kidnapped by her father? Remember that?
Do you also remember that she was killed in the process of being rescued? At first the cops blamed the father, then they blamed her, and claimed (among other fantastical elements) that she was wearing heavily armored tactical gear when exiting her father's vehicle?
And to back up all of those claims, the CHP and sheriffs department immediately hid all of the available footage they had, claiming it didn't exist.
Now, two years and several lawsuits later the footage has been "found" and released by a journalist. Please note that it wasn't to the family of the victim. It wasn't to the court for review. It was first released to a journalist. That's just the extra special shit cherry on top of this incredible shit sundae.
From The Guardian:
It gets even better in that there are literal portions of the tapes missing:
And finally:
In summary: Kidnapped child was murdered by an incompetent police department who had no business being the ones to try to resolve with no one willing to be in charge of said situation. It looks like the sheriffs wanted a shoot out, so they engineered a bad situation into their desired shoot out, and then executed two people as part of having said shoot out.
Maybe her father did kidnap her. Maybe he did try to get away. Maybe not. We'll never know the full extent of what was going on because the police decided to out and out murder the two of them and then decided to hide as much as they could for as long as they could.
Just so you know, the two year delay is just about long enough to run out the statue of limitations on 1983 claims in California. Funny how all of the timing works out on this, isn't it?
Yeah, I don't think I'm going to read the article, because there's only so sad and angry I can be, and I'm pretty confident that'll exceed my acceptable depression and rage levels.
One thing, how the fuck is there only a two year statute of limitations on this? It happened in 2022, not 1983? I'm confused. And angry. And sad.
So weird!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I'm referring to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claims. In particular these are pretty much the only exception one can score against the police's qualified immunity claims. While there's no federal statute of limitations, each state is free to set their own. California has set theirs for two years.
Not sure exactly when the clock started for this incident, but it does give the sheriff's department a goal to drag things out for. And would you look at that? It's been nearly two years since this happened and now the evidence of their incompetence comes out right before the clock runs out on getting the lawsuit into court.
https://www.fox9.com/news/sheriff-witt-others-sue-hennepin-county-over-hutchinsons-conduct
All very cool and normal for a sheriff's office.
That it was tolerated, likely on multiple occasions over much of his tenure as Sherrif (and likely before), probably exacerbated this shit.
You don't really just become that guy overnight. He has probably been like this much of his career, but the code of silence endemic to law enforcement allowed him to become sheriff for a metro area with a million people.
Former Washburn, Maine Police Sgt. Chandler Cole was arrested and is currently out on bail for allegedly falsifying records and lying on a police report. What did he lie about? That he dropped Erik Foote off at a local hospital for evaluation sometime on January 29th or 30th. The problem is that Erik hasn't been seen or heard from since having lunch with his mother on the 29th. People have reported sighting around the same time, but no trace of Erik has been found since then. Chandler has proven to be the biggest blockage in this story thus far, electing to remain silent about why he lied on his report and accept being fired instead of illuminating the situation. He was so quiet about the situation that he allowed his uniform to be literally cut off him instead of doing anything.
As far as I can tell, this is a situation where if the former officer did interact, did so in some malicious way. But how malicious? Hard to know at this point. And again, that's a pretty large "if" we're looking at here. It could very well be the case that Chandler didn't do a damn thing and made up the whole interaction.
The problem is that he isn't talking and doesn't want to talk.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
https://www.wlfi.com/news/local/west-lafayette-police-officer-resigns-following-internal-investigation/article_1339b8b8-d7e3-11ee-a183-bb723e9c67e4.html
Seems...minimal, however, whatever they did find was beyond damning cause it led to his
Yeah, they effectively nuked this man's entire career as a police officer as best they could, past and present.
A followup came out yesterday and it turns out we finally have that number.
https://www.wlfi.com/news/local/wlpd-body-camera-footage-shows-officers-alleged-wrongdoing-76-cases-to-be-dismissed/article_5bb63b1a-00d4-11ef-a56a-af32bbefbb15.html
76. 76 fucking cases are being dismissed
And of course, the chief does what cops do
I was curious, because the article states "short-lived career". Turns out they knew exactly how long and were avoiding it, cause they're the goddamn ones that reported on his hiring anyways
https://www.wlfi.com/news/west-lafayette-police-department-welcomes-two-officers-to-the-force/article_8284537a-f7a9-11ec-9b82-9364b5407f48.html
June, 2022. 76 cases to be dismissed, spanning less than 2 years. And it should be a lot worse, because this isn't his first law enforcement job.
It's just 99% of cops that make the rest look bad.
Thankfully this happened before a fatal incident occured.
While the Chief is being a bit wishy washy, I gotta figure that he's balancing getting things done, vs the likely revolt by his department that'll see him ousted, if he didn't. I'd rather that a stronger stance was taken, but I can understand the politics of it, and if he continues to oust troublesome officers, that's better than the likely raging killology dipshit that'd replace him if he got the arse.
Optics are good, results are better, IMO.
He'll find some place to continue working law enforcement
Now that his name is out there, here's hoping that those that get abused do a google search, a d there's enough public pressure in his new locality that he's forced out.
I'm all for forgiveness. But there are several professions were a significant enough breach of public trust, by severity or repetition (this clearly wasn't one incident) should void working in that industry again.
Police is at the top of that list.
Have them try their best, meet a wall of silence and ambivalence and corruption, not really succeed, and end each episode saying "this case is totally not based on this case, because the real life case is even sadder".
Maybe just flash forward some of the cases where someone gets taken to court and say "he got transferred to another place /shrug shoulders".