|
The Ender posted:(The FBI is honestly my favorite policing organization, mostly due to their transparency & the amount of public data they make available) And the FBI hasn't made a shooting mistake in the last 20 years* *According to their oversight agency, the FBI.
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
Did someone mention the FBI? http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...dc97_story.html quote:Nearly every criminal case reviewed by the FBI and the Justice Department as part of a massive investigation started in 2012 of problems at the FBI lab has included flawed forensic testimony from the agency, government officials said. That sounds bad, but how many cases are they reviewing? quote:The inquiry includes 2,600 convictions and 45 death-row cases from the 1980s and 1990s in which the FBI’s hair and fiber unit reported a match to a crime-scene sample before DNA testing of hair became common. The FBI had reviewed about 160 cases before it stopped, officials said. That's not good at all.... quote:According to a Justice Department spokesman, officials last August completed reviews and notified a first wave of defendants in 23 cases, including 14 death-penalty cases, that FBI examiners “exceeded the limits of science” when they linked hair to crime-scene evidence. Ah yes, "exceeded the limits of science". That makes lying sound hella futuristic. At least they're working on it... quote:However, concerned that errors were found in the “vast majority” of cases, the FBI restarted the review, grinding the process to a halt, said a government official who was briefed on the process. The Justice Department objected in January, but a standoff went unresolved until this month. Right.... quote:No crime lab performed more hair examinations for federal and state agencies than the 10-member FBI unit, which testified in cases nationwide involving murder, rape and other violent felonies. Well I'm sure this was just a rogue agent, just one bad apple? quote:This month, the inspector general reported that inattention and foot-dragging by the Justice Department and the FBI led them to ignore warnings 15 years ago that scientifically unsupported and misleading testimony could have come from more than a single hair examiner among agents discredited in a 1997 inspector general’s report on misconduct at the FBI lab. Since 1999 they've had the clues. If only someone at the FBI could put the clues together, if only they had hired someone with those skills....
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 09:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So many investigative practices are junk science, it's no surprise even without the shortcuts. Don't even get me started on "fire science".... 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Also most of those agencies have limited coercive power over individuals. Compared to the police or the FBI, the FDA's or the EPA's ability to end my life is much smaller. Sure, both agencies make decisions that do impact lives, but "kill/maim someone" isn't in their toolbox in the same way it is for law enforcement.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Having the FBI be the final police reform authority is like asking the most environmentally friendly oil company to be the EPA. Sure they might do a good job cleaning up the worst actors, but they'll never fix the system. Law enforcement can't police law enforcement, we've been learning that lesson forever now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:5) Ban all public employee unions, or at least all unions related to police power (police/prison guard unions) Why on earth do you think public employees don't deserve labor protections or collective bargaining? If there's something you think unions shouldn't be able to bargain over (e.g. paid leave during investigations) then ban that practice. Why throw out unions? Edit: I'd love to understand the logic behind banning teacher's unions having a positive impact on police reform....
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:In general, because public employees work for the electorate and their "bargain" is whatever the voters choose to give them at the ballot box, with anything else they gain from strike action being anti-democratic. They aren't working against the power of a private employer, and they do not have a right to override the education, policing, or other policies that the democratic process has arrived at. So the fact that we have democratically passed public union laws allowing them to strike doesn't count as being democratic? meat sweats posted:
Lobbying is just as large a blocker to prison reform, so why aren't you arguing for banning all lobbying too? You're also ignoring my question. Why not ban public employee unions from negotiating over the issues you dislike rather than banning the institution all together? Do you think janitors deserve fewer workplace protections and rights just because they work for the State or can you explain why banning teacher's unions would help police reform?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:As long as you think that going against a police union means "having an implacable hatred of teachers" no police reform will ever take place. This is a fact. You yourself listed banning teachers unions as one of your longterm steps towards police reform.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:What's the point of assigning blame to the SFPD here? They were clearly just good guys who were under a lot of pressure from higher up the chain and being upset about lovely police work really doesn't solve anything does it? Sarcasm doesn't work well in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
"What is the point of 'assigning blame' to the murderer, instead of looking at the reasons why they had motivation to commit murder?" - Said no cop ever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, you haven't come out and said they're not responsible. Your framing is exquisite, you just deflect and redirect. Its a classic trick really, instead of engaging on the issue deflect by criticizing those that are "upset". Remember we shouldn't blame cops for covering up a murder, there were political considerations! If we get "upset" about anything, it should be at a nebulous and hard to define "system" rather than the people taking immoral or unethical actions.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You can blame them if you want. If you want to reform the police, though, you're going to have to do things beyond blaming the police. I actually think that if police had to take responsibility for their actions it would in fact be a big step in police reform.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:
Can someone come up with 5 examples where police officers were convicted and received a sentence at least as harsh as the median sentence for that crime? I'm not asking you to come up with it, but I struggle to think of more than a few examples at best. Even the cannibal cop got off and the Danziger Bridge shooting is still awaiting the retrial. I'm hoping we can come up with 5 examples and maybe this is all just media bias, but I'm concerned that there is a fundamental disconnect between the reality of how abusive behavior by cops is punished and the appearance. I think many Americans believe those that swear an oath to protect and instead commit crimes should be punished as harshly if not more so than your average crook. But reality is far from that. So its difficult for communities to trust police when there is no appearance of accountability or justice when police break the law.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Frank James Coppola (convicted 1978, murder, while off duty) I guess its pretty depressing only one of those convictions is from this century. And even in the Craig Peyer case cops tried to cover up his crime. Unsurprisingly I'm not able to find statistics on crimes committed by law enforcement. Edit: And only 3, maybe 4 were "on the job" abuse so to speak. If we count a politician killing his rival as "on the job". Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm sorry, do you want 5 convictions since 2000? I'd be happy to provide that, but before I do can I ask if there are any other new restrictions to the request? You want them all to be convictions for officers doing something on the job? I mean yes if you could actually find 5 from the last 15 years that'd be great. Like I said, I can't find any actual statistics on the matter, although I did find that cops are much more likely to commit murder than the general populous. And I don't know why you're getting so defensive here, do you really believe police get prosecuted as hard as everyone else?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-08-19/news/bs-md-officers-in-prison-20120819_1_federal-prison-kickback-scheme-baltimore-cops (Illegal kickbacks, 8-42mo.) I guess I didn't make my point clear. Sure all those officers got convicted, but their sentences are reduced from the norm. The average sentence in the US for Assault is 61 months. Only the last example is longer than that and it seems like even that officer got railroaded by mandatory minimums and politics rather than self-policing. Combine this with the well documented facts that deaths and injuries related to arrests are under reported, that cases against police are often dropped, and then even if there is a conviction it is less than what a regular member of the community would receive; those things all add up to create a huge barrier to community trust. In the US less than 50-100 LEOs are murdered each year but 300-400 people are murdered by LEOs in their custody each year. So there are real and significant trust issues that any community would have. Yes, this is a systemic issue but one that is a pre-requisite for regaining community trust. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:That statistic is biased, though. You are saying they are murdered as if you know. There can be legitimate in-custody deaths. The number of actual true in-custody murders is much lower and probably less then the LEO's murdered, followed by most being negligent deaths, and then those that are justified. There is still a problem, but blanket calling it murder is in itself wrong. I'm using the Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers and they do account for legitimate deaths: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf  In 2009, 497 people were killed due to homicide by law enforcement personal in relation to an arrest. "In 2009, 48 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty." (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2009). Edit: In only 45% of cases where someone was killed by law enforcement had they assaulted the officer prior to being killed, so even if every instance of assault justifies use of deadly force, that still leaves 55% of the people killed by law enforcement. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Those are deaths in relation to an arrest, not while in custody. Like, also deaths while the cops are attempting to arrest them. I apologize those numbers include people killed by cops before they had the chance to get the handcuffs on you are correct.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Great, it's always cool when someone can admit they were wrong. I actually didn't since I was But lets go through them: Obdicut posted:Francis P. Brevetti -- arrested for Class D felony and a misdemeanor, got 3 years suspended sentence and three years probation in a plea deal. For a class D felony, that's a normal sentence. I can't find a source for this, can you? So unfortunately, only one of these cops got close to an average sentence and that's only if you ignore the civil rights violations and only count the assault.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Again. Homicide is not murder. Apologies for using murder instead of homicide. My point still stands that cops are far more likely to kill than get killed in an interaction with the public. This creates distrust in the community. Cops are far more likely to get a reduce sentence than the general public, this too creates distrust in the community. Also those numbers do not include deaths in corrections.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:A source for the class D felony claim, or for the case itself? I was using primarily BJS or state level statistics as I could find them. My point isn't as to why cops get an easier deal than an average felon but that so long as all these examples are combined with the numerous cases where cops don't even get punished at all (or get paid time off or desk duty) create a huge disconnect between how laws are applied to everyday people and how the law applies to LEOs. The fact still stands that more people are killed by LEOs while in their custody, who did not assault the officer first (160-200 a year), than LEOs are feloniously killed in the line of duty (50-100). There is a huge disconnect here, because I'm certain that LEOs get off easy in every step of the legal process. Sure some of them get treated as bad as the rest of us, but the norm is for leniency for LEOs. If you believe otherwise, there you're right that we're going to need a big study to resolve the difference.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay. Do you undersatnd why that's not a good comparison? You have to at the very least compare average sentences for first-time convictions, and take into account the plea bargains. Those numbers are from BJS and FBI reports. I cannot find a source for first-time convictions only, but if you can please feel free to link it. I'd love to see it. Until then, averages are the best I have. Once again I'm not arguing that there's a conspiracy or anything like that, just that so long as this is the reality (or at least the perspective of the community) there is little similarities between the way cops get treated by the judicial system and the way everyone else does; then there are going to be fundamental issues with trust. USDAs aren't really political positions and while they're better than some state DAs, I don't know how much better they really are. justsharkbait posted:As of 2014 there are approximately 780,000 LEO in the US. Given the statistic of 93,000,000 arrest from 2003-2009 let us do some math. You're right about the death rates and I didn't say that LEOs were less likely to get assaulted or killed than the people they are arresting, just that more people are killed by LEOs while arresting them than LEOs are killed. However, "The rate of officer assaults in 2012 was 10.2 per 100 sworn officers." So that's much smaller than the 53% you're using (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2012/officers-assaulted/assaults_topic_page_-2012).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Actually, its not. It is about a 7-10% chance you get assaulted each year. Which means if you are a cop for ~5 years that is about a 50% chance you get assaulted, which is accurate based on my experience. I'm pretty sure the FBI has their numbers right. I wouldn't try to multiply out a 1 year statistics to multiple years, but I get your point that LEOs are often exposed to risk over multiple years, but so is the public. But part of my point is, that 55% of the people killed by LEOs during arrests didn't attack the officer. justsharkbait posted:I know what you are asking though, because many officers who work the higher crime areas get assaulted at least 2-3 times a week where the officers who work the lower-crime areas can go an entire year without a major confrontation. Or alternatively the rate of assault may vary by officer behavior.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Right. But "didn't attack the officer" means that that they simply died while in custody of the officer and did not fit in the other categories. For example, negligence such as how they were seated in the car, or left on their stomach to long, etc. So "people killed by LEO" does not mean they actually killed them, but that the officer was responsible in all or some part for their death b/c they were in custody. That is wrong. People that died that didn't fit in other categories is "unknown" on this chart. Homicide by law enforcement is very much because a LEO killed them, not just responsible for their care. I'm talking about the 55% of deaths during arrests where the person didn't allegedly commit assault beforehand. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf posted:Of reported arrest-related deaths, 45% of decedents allegedly engaged in assault either immediately prior to or during the process of arrest. justsharkbait posted:It is not saying that those 55% of people were just arbitrarily killed by an officer. So i still agree there is a problem with negligence and lack of training, etc, but i was trying to fix the connotation that we just kill people in custody b/c why not. It is very rare that an actual in-custody murder occurs. I get what you're saying, and I'm not trying to imply all these deaths are because of malice or even negligence. However, when we talk about trust issues between police and the people they interact with, I think its important to remember the risk goes both ways (and at the end of the day, the police still have the power).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Are you going to answer why you asked for five examples of convictions and then immediately said that those didn't matter, your point was all the cops who don't get convicted? I did in fact respond to your examples. And I asked for them as a conversation started about this very issue. Unless we are talking about serial killers or murders from the 70s, it is rather difficult to come up with examples of criminal cops being sentenced worse than average criminals. Yes there are many structural reasons that is true, but it is also the cherry on the top of the easy treatment police receive in the judicial system. This easy treatment is part of what creates distrust of police in a lot of communities. Then combine that with the risk to regular citizens that an interaction with LEOs represents and it furthers this distrust. The risk that citizens present to LEOs is real as well, and multiplied by the vastly larger number of interactions on the LEO side of the equation. This mutual standoff widens the gap further as individual LEO abuses stick in the memory of the community and the individual, while within an LEO perspective it was one mistake among thousands of successes. I've chosen to focus on homicides committed by LEOs, but there is another great study from BJS about LEO behavior during arrests that will likewise echo the trend of LEO interactions presenting a slight but real risk of illegal force to individuals while receiving lighter punishments for the few cases where illegal force is prosecuted. I had a feeling that the premise: "LEOs receive easy treatment in the justice system" might meet some resistance, but if it isn't true the law enforcement community needs to better publicize the evidence in the communities they operate in. Or at least publish a study. (If someone can find that study, please, please link it.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Here's a good article from a former federal prosecutor about grand juries: http://www.popehat.com/2014/02/27/the-kaley-forfeiture-decision-what-it-looks-like-when-the-feds-make-their-ham-sandwich/ The article is focused on asset freezes and other pre-trial measures, but does lay out a lot about how grand juries operate. quote:With very few exceptions — usually involving touchy cultural issues — the grand jury is a rubber-stamp. When it's accusatory it's a very minor speed bump, a speed bump like the one your neighbor's 17-year-old son races over in his truck at 2 in the morning. When it's investigatory it's a tool and container to assist in prosecutions with a rubber-stamp on the end. The courts, as reflected in Kaley, tell us that it serves to protect rights. Perhaps with lightning-strike rarity it does. But in the overwhelming majority of cases the grand jury — and the courts' confidence in it — reflects the view that the purpose of the criminal justice system is to convict the people the government sees fit to accuse.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
wixard posted:That would be nice, but how do we do that without the unions threatening to strike until we pay cops enough money to have comprehensive "malpractice" insurance? I'm pretty sure specific LEO liability insurance products already exist. How many victims of police abuse will be able to successfully navigate civil trials to get awarded more than 7 figures and actually put a dent in the union's finances? If the threat of union strikes were the real issue then wouldn't we have a reformed police system in all the states where public workers and/or emergency workers are forbidden from striking? Strong unions aren't a universal in the United States, but I'm unaware of a state where police act tremendously better than any other state. You're still ignoring all the states where cops can't strike and/or unions are weak. \/ Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Police have a real need for union protection, it is an unsafe job. However, that doesn't mean that police unions should have all the powers of regular unions. Many states ban police from striking and have weak union laws yet still have police abuse. Also your analogy doesn't really work because what you're calling "congress striking" is a majority of representatives doing what they were elected to do. Which may be nothing, but conservatives like the status quo so how is that shocking?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:The issue with police unions is them refusing to implement directives like "stop hassling people for being black" or "wear lapel cameras." Job safety (an already-debunked myth in this thread) or strikes for pay are not the primary concern. Police can do that just as easily without a union. Do you have any proof of a union ordering its members to defy a lapel camera regulation or ordering the harassment of back people? Cops in the south have weak unions and still manage to harass black people just fine. If police unions were a major factor in police abuse then states with weak union laws should have statistically less abusive police right?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
wixard posted:Someone mentioned earlier that the police union managed to lobby hard enough for Rick Perry to veto the law TX legislature passed that would prevent cops from taking people into custody for any minor offense. Twice. Texas isn't exactly a strong union state. Right, and it doesn't take a union to lobby. It would be unconstitutional to prevent police from forming a lobbying group. meat sweats posted:It's also worth noting that in states with laws banning or restricting public employee unions, police still form "professional associations" or "benevolent societies" that are unions in every practical aspect, because police can ignore the law whenever they feel like it. So there really are no "states without police unions" to compare to. So you admit that removing unions won't actually fix the problem, good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Yes, it is my opinion that all organization and lobbying by police should be banned. Well until you can change the First Amendment good luck with that one buddy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:I have the right to disobey a law saying I must wear a camera as part of my government job to prevent me from bashing in black skulls for fun. It's free speech. Ignoring your straw-man for a second, the point still stands that if the non-union "brotherhoods" and other organizations are enough to continue the corruption you despise, so banning unions won't do a thing. You yourself admit this: meat sweats posted:It's also worth noting that in states with laws banning or restricting public employee unions, police still form "professional associations" or "benevolent societies" that are unions in every practical aspect, because police can ignore the law whenever they feel like it. So there really are no "states without police unions" to compare to. Instead you want to ban the police from organizing and spending money on political speech. That would require a constitutional amendment and if we're going to that much effort, I'd rather say have an amendment directly limiting police powers rather than indirectly limiting powers by limiting speech.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:The government can be banned from negotiating with police unions and police-unions-in-all-but-name without barring police unions from existing -- no free speech problem, just an end to the influence of police on the law. This would resolve my concerns. Oh, so you mean like in Texas, where the state is banned from negotiating with unions? That doesn't seem to work as well as you think. If you're going to stop police from lobbying, which seems to be your actual complaint, that would be a free speech issue.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:The union is what prevents all the solutions addressing "inherent power and lack of oversight" from being implemented. After a rare moment when the public and the politician class actually was outraged enough to issue a "do not kill people for fun anymore" directive, it is the union saying "no, we refuse to comply." Actually, the union is asking its members to follow all the rules exactly by the book. That's how this kind of labor action works. But keep living in a fantasy land. quote:“Going forward, for members of the NYPD, we want you to do your job and follow the rule book the way it’s written,” Sergeants Benevolent Association President Ed Mullins said during a news conference in Manhattan. “If there’s a delay getting to the next place, so be it.” Meanwhile the laboratory of democracy has proven police unions aren't the problem. Can they be a tool used by corruption, sure. But the South has shown that corruption can do just fine without a union.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Yes, they are launching a work-to-rule strike in protest of being told not to murder people. This is unacceptable. Of course that's not how they see it. quote:“I think the mayor needs to support New York City’s police officers — unequivocally say it, and unequivocally say resisting arrest hurts everyone, police officers and citizens alike, and will not be tolerated,” Lynch said. But sure, the NYPD is mad they can't murder people and if only we took their union away (and their rights to political speech and free assembly of course), it would be impossible for them engage in work-slowdowns or other labor actions. Without the unions, police corruption would disappear and all of a sudden without their union reps telling them to murder people, cops wouldn't harass black people or use excessive force.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The union serves as a bulwark to shield the officers from culpability for any manner of crimes committed in the line of duty, and further serves as their political lobbying arm to try to ensure politicians friendly to themselves are elected. For instance, the person who killed Garner isn't even on leave, let alone unpaid leave. There's innumerable examples beyond that. You like meat head, are ignoring the fact that police get away with all that poo poo without a strong union. I don't deny the unions get used by corrupt cops to shield themselves, I'm just saying that taking away police unions doesn't solve the problems you want it to solve. Police can lobby without a union, police get paid leave for killing someone without a real union, police work together to subvert regulation without a real union. Getting rid of unions won't solve the problems of police corruption and it won't stop police using their power and "good old boy" networks to influence policy. However, the more that the conversation is focused on unions the less the conversation is focused on meaningful police reforms.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:There is already an analog called murder. I'm unsure what the analog for "Non violent resisting arrest" is? So you're saying that if we took away resisting arrest, police would just charge people with assault against a peace officer instead?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Pointing out a horrible thing a police union did? Wow, way to hate teachers. You are probably the most anti-police reform poster in this thread. You bring up this distraction of teacher's constantly. No one else mentions it. Edit: I mean, you had a perfect opportunity to discuss a specific and meaningful police reform, one that would weaken police unions, and instead choose to flail against imaginary persecutors. That's just not effective rhetoric and while I'm sure that writing that post was cathartic, it is not conducive to productive discourse on police reform. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:The problem is you aren't good at reasoning and are applying leftist dogma before facts. I'm using evidence to show why police unions are bad -- it's not my fault there's a lot of evidence and EVERY time a police abuse incident takes place there's a "union head calls for execution of people for looking at police in mean way, demands lollipops for life for officer who shot black man" story the next day. You are starting from the premise "all unions are good" and refusing to change your beliefs based on evidence. No, you're the one who keeps shooting your own arguments in the back by blathering on about teachers unions and all public employee unions rather than talking about police corruption or police reform. Remember everyone, it was Meat Sweats's who first brought up banning all public employee unions as a solution to police corruption. That's why you're a joke and that's why your anti-union jabbering only distracts from a real discussion about police reform. You keep screaming that until we destroy all public employee unions we can't reform the police and that's bullshit and off topic. meat sweats posted:Long-term proposals: meat sweats posted:As long as you continue to insist that public employee unions are good, you will get nowhere with this. meat sweats posted:All public sector unions should be illegal... meat sweats posted:Public employee unions are a cancer, this is an area where you must make a choice between leftist economics and liberal ideas about freedom and equality. Choosing leftist economics would be incorrect. meat sweats posted:I'm in favor of not letting teachers declare they have no intention of complying with the law in those states where electorates have chosen to cut salaries and benefits. meat sweats posted:The teachers go on strike until the budget is restored to the level they demand, irrespective of what the voters or their elected representatives have democratically chosen. meat sweats posted:As long as you think that going against a police union means "having an implacable hatred of teachers" no police reform will ever take place. This is a fact. meat sweats posted:Pointing out a horrible thing a police union did? Wow, way to hate teachers. But yeah, keep arguing with your fantasy I'm sure it feels good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
meat sweats posted:Well yes, when you read it as a "series of posts" rather than a series of out of context half-sentences re-ordered to make that point. I was asked how my logic about police unions applies to teachers thirty pages ago and I made the mistake of answering the question honestly instead of shouting slogans. So are you denying that you proposed eliminating all public employee unions as a "solution" to police corruption? meat sweats posted:This has led to anyone who questions a police union being accused of "hating teachers" by people who think their job in the "police reform" thread is to shout down any attempt at discussing police reform. Please fine exactly one quote where someone in this thread said that? You cannot use a post responding to your claims about all public employee unions. Find somewhere where the conversation goes police unions -> teachers unions and you're not the one bringing up teachers. meat sweats posted:At some point you have to realize that "teachers in public schools complying with the will of the electorate on education policy" is a price that must be paid to end the ability of police to kill people for fun. To me, there is no contest as to what the right choice is. To others, their concern with "police reform" stops the minute it requires doing the one necessary thing to achieve any actual police reform. Once again you're making a straw man. What do teacher's unions have to do with police unions or police reforms? Nothing. (Besides, you're again ignoring the democratically passed laws that allow public unions and strikes). Explain exactly how we must end teacher's unions so that we can "end the ability of police to kill people for fun". Can you go 5 posts again without mentioning teachers or all public unions? Please say anything you want about police unions or you know police reform if you're interested. Obdicut posted:Just out of curiosity, Meat Sweats, should any company that makes a profit from providing services to the government also be banned from lobbying of all kinds? Or is bundled capital fine and good for the political process, but bundled labor is horrible and corruptive? I am saddened that I can't really believe there is going to be an unbiased investigation into this shooting. When its one cops word against many witnesses, well its obvious what will happen.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 01:55
|
|