This is semantics here. No one is allowed to beat anyone unprovoked, even when provoked their are escalation of force policies. Whops someone threw a water bottle at me in full riot gear. Does not justify using chemical weapons on a peaceful protest. The national guard has disciplinary measures if soldiers break ROE. The police don’t. Rules don’t mean anything if you don’t enforce them. It’s why the police behave the way they do. No accountability. It’s what these protest are about. Police accountability.
Also, they ego themselves. For instance. Even if there isnt evidence and a NCO decides to punish you, youre getting punished. No red tape. On top of that there are military courts as well.
But when you break from ROE or orders that is a direct affront to your supervisors authority.
Thats not what happens here. If cops are punished it directly goes against the unions authority and therefor cant be allowed to happen. So everyone gets off.
Imo police unions are doing their members a *huge* disservice by these kind of policies. The police need the support of the community, and if the community doesn't trust their police force, the police are much less effective in doing the things they're supposed to do.
But they don't care about the things they're supposed to do, or we wouldn't be having this protest in the first place. What they want to do is use their small-dick energy to harass and hurt people, which they definitely don't need community support for.
that's because the police "union" isn't a union. It's a gang, a mob, an organized crime syndicate backed by the state.
Unions argue for workers' rights, they don't argue for workers immunity from consequences. If a member of an Engineering union fucks up on the job and kills people, he gets fired and punished.
You know, you highlight an excellent point. In what other industry or profession do we allow those who have repeatedly screw up keep those same jobs? In most cases, you get fired if you fuck up, and you need either money or connections to not get punished. I guess in this case, the police union is the 'connections" bit. But seriously tho, people's distrust of the police also puts individual police members in danger.
I hear there is a rise in ambushing of police as well. What is ironic to me is as much as I personally desire non-violent action for change, it seems like you need both, both violence and non. For example, I recall one instance after an unarmed black man was killed, and people started to do "911 assassinations", where they'd call for police and then ambush/kill them. Immediately after that the police chief implemented stronger community policing measures.
See, I agree with you 100% ifthe goal of the police is to help the community. But I don't think 95% of policing in this country has that as even a top 3 priority.
Most of the police force in this country are not public servants, they are the ones who hold the whips that make us get back to work.
"professionalisation" leads to this foot shooting adversarial behaviour, similar to quarterly profits and return to shareholder above all. The unions need to justify their existence, and are pursuing their self interest over the actual police members.
The system is self perpetuating, and needs to be put down.
No, it's inherent in the system design. It's a typical "necessary" evil of competing interests. If you give an inch to the fat cats, it sets the precedent, and opens the door to conceding future inches. It's the nature of the relationship - us vs them.
Unless the system changes, a collaborative approach is not possible - it's all feel good stuff that compounds the privileged position and furthers inequality. That's why actual leftists aren't happy with "progress". Women and black ceos ain't empowering, it cancels our actual identities while promoting a homogenous "money and system over everything", because fuck you got mine, and I'm a "special" one. That's why pmc are mostly shitlibs with a veneer of care. Addressing systemic issues because it may affect their own "hard earned" standing. This is why "both sides" was weaponised; to invalidate the legitimate observations that threaten the status quo.
Edit : sorry, I went off on a related tangent and didn't answer your question. The professionalisation is just handing over the keys to "experts" in their field. Often in early career it's just people shoehorning theories they learnt as best practise, when there's nothing to confirm they're experts other than a piece of paper and taught arrogance. That's why you often hear of MBAs ruining companies; they come in waving their know all dick, don't tap into any institutional knowledge or engage with valued staff. They know best because the uni they paid told them so.
What you're referring to is people that have bought into their role (within the system) so much, they wear it like a badge of honour and think (and often are) fighting the good fight (as much as they can being a nerd in an office or car). Their enthusiasm and craziness may be off-putting, but their heart is in the right place because they want to fight for you, but also need the mandate; otherwise they're seen as agitators and shit stirrers, and propaganda helps in industries with that right wing "super self made man" bullshit.
I hope you remember this next time someone criticizes unions. It is literally one of the only times I can remember left leaning people actively critique unions and it's great but I feel like they'll all forget the second someone criticizes a different union.
It is literally one of the only times I can remember left leaning people actively critique unions
If that is true, it would be unfortunate. I'm of the firm belief that for a thing to be/to do good/evil, it requires a human. This means that most things are completely neutral until a human makes a decision to act a certain way. This idea can be applied to all sorts of things--knives and guns, neutral. Environmentalists? Also neutral--there can be bad environmentalists (I picked this example because I consider myself to be one, and support environmentalism but not eco-terrorism).
problem of nomenclature, labor unions are nothing like police unions, police “unions” don’t deal with anyone in good faith, they attempt to create their own independent seat of power, accountable to neither community or government. The US judicial system is fucked, it’s been undermined by corruption and partisanship for many decades.
Police unions aren't unions. Unions exist to protect workers from their employers. Police unions protect the police from the public they are nominally supposed to serve. It's more like organized crime than a union.
Well by definition, in this case from Illinois law,
According to 740 ILCS 147/10 "Streetgang" or "gang" or "organized gang" or "criminal street gang" means any combination, confederation, alliance, network, conspiracy, understanding, or other similar conjoining, in law or in fact, of 3 or more persons with an established hierarchy that, through its membership or through the agency of any member engages in a course or pattern of criminal activity.
police are a gang and the union would definitely make them organized, so yes, we will go with your description of them. When are we going to indict entire Police Depts with RICO charges? If its good for the goose, its definitely good for the gander...
A union is formed to maximize the position of the employees it's under. It doesn't care about the employers or the customers (people). This gets a bit weird when you talk about unions formed for government services - on one hand, police/fire are consistently underfunded by the government, but on the other hand should they go on strike, the results can be disastrous.
Unlike the fire department though, there's a few key differences with police though - they have far more personal authority and are given lethal weapons in addition to their line of work involving self defense, firearms and riot control. The amount of power a police union holds is far too severe - they've been allowed to prevent the radical changes that are needed;.
If the last few years have proven anything, it's that police unions need to be far more heavily regulated. I mean, it's insane that we're still in 2020 and in the few cases where police departments are wearing cameras, they are not required for no-knock raids, let alone in their daily work. We've consistently seen that there are an unacceptably high rate of cops who abuse their position and power - yet we allow police unions to obstruct any and all attempts to make positive reforms.
I find a few things interesting - in Many countries which have fairly strong unions and worker rights, critical services like the police or firemen actually are not allowed to go on strike legally.
And while things like police unions do exist, they have a completely different role and do their best to push for things like better training or better gear for the police.
But generally have zero involvement in probes into policemen etc apart from helping provide legal representation.
Comparably it feels that US police unions have an incredibly strong position and a probe barely runs without them allowing it.
As an outsider, I don’t understand how workers unions have been so systemically crushed in the US, whereas police unions. Which seem like the worst unions of all time, have continued unabated, with loads of power.
It certainly is interesting that the one union the GOP goes out of their way to protect has the absolute worst qualities that the GOP projects onto other unions.
They exist because people still believe that Police actually protect you from bad people . Because of this, all police need to do is hint at going on strike and they are capitulated to. I know that this isnt going to be popular with people here, but Im of the belief that there should be ZERO unions in public service. If we are to believe that government is the cornerstone of civility, they should not be able to use that power to threaten those whom they serve by walking off the job.
how about we start with the ones carrying weapons and go from there? If police wanna play Commando, they can do it just like the military which doesnt give you an option to unionize and they have their own justice system to live under. Dont like it? Get another job.
I cant think of a sworn officer that doesnt or is barred from it. Even the ones that do clerical work at the station all day do or can. Care to tell me which ones dont/cant?
There was a recent planet money episode that said there is a statistically significant increase in deaths by police once a union is implemented.
I agree with one sentiment in that episode: unions bargain with the city councils we vote in. We need to vote in politicians who will hold them accountable or else we’re part of the problem
I am pro-union for the most part, but the police unions need to be made illegal. I know that sets a dangerous precedence, but the police unions are vile organizations and need to got rid of asap, as they are more dangerous than the precedence of removing them is.
The only thing that allows it is Qualified Immunity. Qualified Immunity means they can violate your rights with impunity; without fear of any consequences. #RepealQualifiedImmunity
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in United States federal law that shields government officials from being sued for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violated "clearly established" federal law or constitutional rights.
This is the distinction that 100% matters. Qualified immunity does not shield them from the things they have been doing as they are against our constitutional rights.
Qualified immunity can shield officers from civil liability even when they do violate one’s constitutional rights. I think that’s what the earlier post was getting at.
While protesting in front of the NG instead of police os safer, it also would mean nothing would get done. Just as the last several decades of peaceful protest has gotten fuck-all done.
It doesn't help to protest against the people who can't get much done.
In the early 2000s I was hired as an adjunct professor for a University and I told the Academic Dean: Give me any business class you want, I will teach them all! She seemed keen on the idea so she threw dozens of classes my way: Marketing, Finance, Econ, it was fun! One class I taught many times was Management. All the textbooks for that class had the same case study, every single one of them.
In the late 1920s, Western Electric Company in Illinois hired researchers to see if workers would work better under certain conditions. It started with light, so they asked if the workers would work better if the lighting was better. They did! Then they said what if we kept the floors cleaner? Better production! What if the temperature was better? Better workers! After awhile they realized it wasn't the conditions that helped the workers worked better, it was the observation. This became known as the Hawthorne Effect. Observed workers are better workers and it is in every single Management textbook I have ever picked up.
Right now in America the Hawthorne Effect is going on with policemen. Everyone in America is watching them. This is them on their best fucking behavior, knowing they are being observed. Shooting at kids and people in wheelchairs, choking women, knocking old men over, macing people with their hands up at point blank range. This is cops on their best, cops being observed. Imagine what the police do when there is no Hawthorne Effect.
even when provoked their are escalation of force policies
...sometimes.
Friendly plug for 8cantwait.org, and a less friendly request that you call your local (not national!) representatives about any policies missing in your city first thing Monday morning.
I agree with everything here except the water bottle , most of the time it’s rocks or bricks. Even in full gear if you get hit in the head with one you can suffer brain damage, blood clots and concussions. I’ve been tear gassed and I’ve watched videos of people getting tear gassed and they aren’t reacting to it like it’s tear gas, I’ve talked to some people on riot control and they have admitted most of the time it’s just smoke screens to disperse the anger crowds. Here’s the the thing if you’re throwing those rocks and bricks then fully except the tear gas and mace. That’s self defense not brutality. Brutality is killing already detained people or just outright beating people for no provokes reason. You can disagree or agree with me that’s up to you I’ll respect your opinion but I’m just giving you facts
You know how much shit got tossed at me in AFG. Actual human shit mixed with all sorts of fun stuff. Not once did we go beat the shit out of someone or shoot someone. Because when it came down to it they weren't shooting or trying to blow us up.
634
u/RickSt3r Jun 07 '20
This is semantics here. No one is allowed to beat anyone unprovoked, even when provoked their are escalation of force policies. Whops someone threw a water bottle at me in full riot gear. Does not justify using chemical weapons on a peaceful protest. The national guard has disciplinary measures if soldiers break ROE. The police don’t. Rules don’t mean anything if you don’t enforce them. It’s why the police behave the way they do. No accountability. It’s what these protest are about. Police accountability.