Police Unions Head To DC To Ask New President, Attorney General To Stop Making Cops Respect The Constitution
from the what's-best-for-cops-vs.-what's-best-for-the-nation dept
Here it comes — the exact sort of response Trump was looking for when he issued his “Standing Up for Our Law Enforcement Community” edict during his first couple of days in office.
One of the fundamental rights of every American is to live in a safe community. A Trump Administration will empower our law enforcement officers to do their jobs and keep our streets free of crime and violence. The Trump Administration will be a law and order administration. President Trump will honor our men and women in uniform and will support their mission of protecting the public. The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it.
This is Trump’s invitation to law enforcement agencies to come to him with their grievances. A promise that they will be heard, ABOVE the voices of the people they’re supposed to be serving. And here they come, right on cue.
Steve Loomis, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, had a blunt message for Donald Trump during a meeting in September: court-ordered reforms aimed at curbing police abuses in the midwestern city are not working.
Loomis and two other attendees said Trump seemed receptive to Loomis’s concerns that federally monitored police reforms introduced during the Obama administration in some cities in response to complaints of police bias and abuse are ineffective and impose an onerous burden on police forces.
Police unions want DOJ consent decrees rolled back, heavily-altered, or done away with altogether. A review of DOJ consent decrees shows law enforcement agencies hit with them have participated in years of unconstitutional policing, engaging in everything from discrimination to routine deployment of excessive force.
The decrees — while seldom completely effective — target pervasive mass violations of citizens’ civil liberties. They address the symptoms and attempt to apply a cure. But the problems are deep-seated, based on years of us v. them policing and a culture that actively protects its worst members.
Unions are part of the problem. They are definitely not part of the solution. In Philadelphia, the police union managed to derail an officer-involved-shooting investigation board recommended by the DOJ, removing all independent outside investigators and replacing them with police officers and police officials.
The DOJ’s long, thoroughly-damning report on what may be America’s worst police force — the Chicago PD — notes that police unions have long stood in the way of improving the department.
Here’s a list of other CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) provisions that the feds said hamper investigations of police misconduct and should be change:.
- The contracts allow officers accused of misconduct or involved in shootings to delay interviews.
- The agreements mandate disclosure of a complainant’s identity to an accused officer before questioning, which is problematic because many complainants fear police retaliation.
- The agreements limit investigations into misconduct complaints filed more than five years after an incident, and requires the destruction of most disciplinary records older than five years.
“The City fails to conduct any investigation of nearly half of police misconduct complaints,” the report said. “In order to address these ignored cases, the City must modify its own policies, and work with the unions to address certain CBA provisions, and in the meantime, it must aggressively investigate all complaints to the extent authorized under these contracts.”
The last thing most police unions want is more accountability. This is why union heads are in DC, talking to Trump. Consent decrees attempt to force law enforcement agencies to act constitutionally, which is apparently something officers (or at least their reps) are unwilling to do.
The police groups want to discuss the decrees with Jeff Sessions, Trump’s designee for attorney general who has voiced criticism of them, although any renegotiation would be legally complicated because all parties as well as a federal judge must approve any changes.
“There are certainly decrees that are inartfully applied that we’d like to see revisited,” said Jim Pasco, the head of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest police union with 330,000 members. It endorsed Trump in September and has worked with Sessions, a Republican senator from Alabama, for years while lobbying Congress for pro-police policies.
“We’ve always found him a man who’s willing to listen to alternatives to a previously charted course,” Pasco said of Sessions.
“Inartfully applied” just means “applied.” The DOJ has “inartfully” attempted to get officers in numerous police departments to stop beating and tasing individuals simply because they weren’t immediately compliant or responded disrespectfully. It has attempted to set a reasonable suspicion standard for police stops and searches. It has attempted to prevent officers from acting in a retaliatory manner against people exercising their First Amendment rights. It has attempted to scale back excessive removals of citizens’ life and liberty by law enforcement officers. It has largely failed to do so because it encounters massive amounts of resistance, much of it led by police unions.
And here come the unions to undo what little good has been done. The union reps say things like “inartfully applied decrees” and “wastes of money” but what they’re really saying is they would rather not have to be limited by the rights of others. And, according to Trump’s own statement, the President himself has little respect for the rights of non-badge-wearing individuals.
The only good news is that — despite Trump’s “law and order” pitch and AG Sessions’ general contempt for Americans and their rights — it will take much more than some union sales pitches to undo consent decrees already in force. The Attorney General may be able to prevent the DOJ’s Civil Rights division from pursuing nearly as many agreements in the future, but it’s likely any attempt to scale back in-place agreements would face an uphill battle in federal court.
But this very likely means the DOJ isn’t going to be nearly as interested in investigating law enforcement agencies for the next four years. The DOJ handed out 24 consent decrees during the eight years Obama was in office. It issued less than half as many while Bush was president. A president who believes not liking the police is “wrong” isn’t going to be too interested in having a government agency find even more reasons for people not to like police officers.
Filed Under: civil liberties, civil rights, consent decree, law and order, police, police abuses
Comments on “Police Unions Head To DC To Ask New President, Attorney General To Stop Making Cops Respect The Constitution”
Trump is dangerous. He is basing his actions on his narrow, distorted, bigoted view of the world. When he says “will honor our men and women in uniform and will support their mission of protecting the public” he means it and he actually believes that police indiscriminately killing, profiling and harassing all mostly race oriented is actually all part of protecting the public. Because in his view the public is only composed by white, conservative, Christian people.
So, yeah, “The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong” and he is gonna end it. Too bad if some thousands need to be abused, beaten and possibly die in the process as long as his WASP friends are ‘protected’.
Re: Re:
“Trump is dangerous. He is basing his actions on his narrow, distorted, bigoted view of the world.”
yea… like we have never had one of those politicians before. turns out we just finished an administration with the same distorted, bigoted view of the world.
Know what else? This is not new either? There used to be slavery in the States… I wonder if those guys had narrow, distorted, bigoted views of the world?
It is when the people have distorted bigoted views of the world that these “leaders” are allowed to gain power. Let me tell you how much distortion and bigotry rule this land… no wait… I don’t think you are able to understand this yet.
Re: Re: Re:
“turns out we just finished an administration with the same distorted, bigoted view of the world”
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
“There used to be slavery in the States… I wonder if those guys had narrow, distorted, bigoted views of the world?”
By today’s standards yes. For the time, the ones suffering from such problems were the ones that kept insisting in slavery when the rest of the world were already moving away from it and people actively rejected the practice at large. So in a word, yes.
“Let me tell you how much distortion and bigotry rule this land… no wait… I don’t think you are able to understand this yet.”
No need to tell me, I already live in a nation that is a hostage of its own slavery-driven past. The positive thing in the US is that the bigotry, the racism is pretty apparent. Here it’s ingrained, rooted inside society to the point it takes effort to see it’s here and it’s worse than it appears. Actually, our Government is as bad as Trump’s but we don’t have nearly as much impact on the rest of the world as the US has.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Actually, our Government is as bad as Trump’s but we don’t have nearly as much impact on the rest of the world as the US has.”
We don’t have enough time yet to know this for certain. I completely see Trumps rise as a natural result of Obama’s administration and the Media’s love affair with the Democratic Party. The only thing I do appreciate about the Media is their willingness to quickly point out the bullshit that the Republicans keep trying to pull.
You are right, the US has a huge impact on the world, and too much of it not very positive sadly. As a conservative I easily recognize how willing we are to allow businesses to rape other nations including our own in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. As a liberal I easily recognize how willing we are to allow racism to be used in a silly attempt to fight racism.
One thing I do recognize is that humanity has an apathy problem. In USA the women are willing to go on a massive march against Trump, but barely do anything for a rape victim being harassed and thrown into jail “for her protection” all because people wanted to go on vacation instead of doing their duty to keep her safe.
We are far more willing to jump on “perceived” injustices while completely ignoring the actual provable injustices that continue to occur unabated.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“I completely see Trumps rise as a natural result of Obama’s administration and the Media’s love affair with the Democratic Party.”
That may be so, but disliking Dems or the media is NOT a justification for electing a buffoon into office.
Re: Re: Re:
“There used to be slavery in the States…”
You have it wrong. “There used to be slavery in the known WORLD…” would be more appropriate. When one says it like the way you did, it is used to sound like ONLY America had slavery, when it used to be a way of life in the world then.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh .. well – that makes it ok then
Re: Re:
“Because in his view the public is only composed by white, conservative, Christian people”
I have not seen that. Can you list some areas where Trump has done this?
Actually, he can end it by requiring ALL who serve within our government to follow the supreme contract that they are all bound by in writing, by Oath.
You sound as if you are one of those people who believe that the USA is a “democracy”. It is not, never has been one, will never be one. The USA, America, is a constitutional republic with all the duties and authority of those who serve within our governments – state and federal – are in writing for all to know and see IF they would only read.
“A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority.” Ellingham v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250.
“The basic purpose of a written constitution has a two-fold aspect, first securing [not granting] to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined spheres.” Du Pont v. Du Pont, 85 A 724.
“The constitution of a state is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon the temper of the times, not to rise and fall with the tide of events. Notwithstanding the competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm and immoveable, as a mountain amidst the strife and storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves.” Vanhorne v. Dorrance, supra.
What does it have to do with tech?
Re: Re:
What does your comment have to do with anything?
Re: Re:
Where is it stated you have to read if it isn’t about tech? Or is it that magic algorithm that forces some people to unwillingly read all Techdirt articles? (btw that’s evil Mike, disable it)
Re: Re:
As I noted the last time you asked, the ‘You must visit and read every article even if you didn’t want to‘ coding is obviously working, so that’s your answer.
Re: Re:
the police and the laws they enforce are involved with everything, including technology. I hope that helps with your understanding.
Well … this will certainly bridge the gap between the police and those they choose to oppress. I’m quite positive that many law abiding folk will greet their jack booted enforcers with open arms and accept the draconian bullshit made up “laws” police cite in defense of their unlawful actions. I can hear pro-police crowd screaming “… but I’m white!” Hahahaha – jokes on you fools
Turninv the USA into a ‘Police State’ is NOT the way to do it though. That would be/is doing the exact opposite of why the USA broke from the UK ways originally. Doing what Trump and the leaders of the Police Unions want is a recipe for disaster!
“One of the fundamental rights of every American is to live in a safe community.”
Wrong right out of the gate. I agree that Black Lives Matter is a destructive, dangerous, hypocritical organization and that the reflexive protest to every “outrage” is dishonest and counterproductive, but part of the whole point of electing Trump was to remind the government of who works for whom.
Fake rights are the language of the left looking to expand the government at the expense of the citizen.
Re: Fake Rights
Fake rights are not the language of the “left.” Fake rights are the language of anyone who wants to curtail real rights. Fer gossake, get over this “left versus right” thing.
Re: Re: Fake Rights
no, fake rights are from people seeking to expand the constitution in ways it is clearly not written to do.
This is indeed a hallmark of the left with the penumbras and emanations bull-crap.
The constitution is crystal clear. Those like Obama and Trump will be 100% relying on the ignorance of people like you to advance their agendas. So far… it has been a success.
Trump is clearly anti 1st in the same way Obama was anti 2nd. Both parties are ready and willing to sacrifice the constitution, and every citizen that voted these two clowns in get what they deserve.
I am just sad that I have to sit here and watch this nation destroy itself when there is clearly another path.
Re: Re: Re: Fake Rights
…so, uh. Are you suggesting that Trump is… on the left?
Re: Re: Re:2 Fake Rights
Trump does have some leftist ideals though I would say he is something else and does seem to be working on the right which has a big love affair for the police state.
I like to think of myself as an original liberal, but lean right. I don’t like Trump OR Obama. Neither of them advance Liberty, they just create more laws and regulations to step on the little guy while making grand speeches and publicly masturbate over the thought of themselves. Both Trump and Obama are productions of hubris and foolishness that no nation can survive for long.
I am one of the very rare people that borrow from all ism’s… every ism has a pro and a con… but Liberty is the corner stone of my political philosophy.
Thomas Jefferson said it best…
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”
The democrats and their love of regulatory capture and government corruption does not serve this end so I hate it.
The republicans and their love of big business as the sacrifice of the people does not serve this end so I hate it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Fake Rights
“The democrats and their love of regulatory capture and government corruption does not serve this end so I hate it.
The republicans and their love of big business as the sacrifice of the people does not serve this end so I hate it.”
As with most things, the answer is somewhere in the middle.
Re: Re: Re:4 Fake Rights
Claiming that one party does or does not do something we all know they both engage in is … well – ummm bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:3 Fake Rights
“I am one of the very rare people that borrow from all ism’s… every ism has a pro and a con…”
“Fake rights are the language of the left looking to expand the government at the expense of the citizen.”
This is the part I’m not getting. You claim to be somewhere in the middle, but you’re still espousing the nebulous “left” as an enemy, even on an article that would clearly be anti-liberal (advancing the powers of the police over the civil rights of the people).
“Those like Obama and Trump will be 100% relying on the ignorance of people like you to advance their agendas. So far… it has been a success.”
You’re also attacking other people for questioning you, which doesn’t seem much like a way to discuss, does it? I didn’t vote for Trump or Hillary – I did vote for Obama, and believe me, I did not appreciate what he did in office – and I’m more than a bit offended that apparently they are relying on my ‘ignorance’?
Attacking “the left” or “the right” is not the answer. Attacking the POLICIES is the answer, here. And doing so in a reasonable, researched, and non-dismissive way.
Re: Re: Re:4 Fake Rights
I view the leadership of the left as the enemy. I happen to think that many of their followers are just not using their noggins, so I don’t think of them as enemies, just misguided fellow citizens.
I have no problem with people questioning me… the attack was directly over and ignorance they made apparent. Trump used to hang with Hillary and the gang back in the day, I am not so quickly sold over his “conservative” credentials. Trump has riled both Republican and Conservative in different ways. I would say Trump is more of a RINO and in reality some sort of Independent.
The two political parties have only one objective… the separation of the Nation. It does not matter if that is their true aim, it just happens to be the only possible outcome.
“Attacking “the left” or “the right” is not the answer. Attacking the POLICIES is the answer, here. And doing so in a reasonable, researched, and non-dismissive way.”
How do you avoid attacking either side while attacking the policies? They are inexorably linked. Any attempt to correct someone or something can be easily perceived as an attack. I am saying people just need to learn to stop taking attacks on their policies or politics so personal! We are turning into a nation of sissies and simpletons where everyone falls apart at the first perceived sign of an insult, offense, or emotional injury.
Re: Re: Re:5 Fake Rights
“Trump used to hang with Hillary and the gang back in the day, I am not so quickly sold over his “conservative” credentials. Trump has riled both Republican and Conservative in different ways. I would say Trump is more of a RINO and in reality some sort of Independent.”
“How do you avoid attacking either side while attacking the policies? They are inexorably linked.”
Do you see the contradiction in your own words here? You are saying that the policies are inexorably linked to the “sides” involved, while also saying the man in charge isn’t on the “side” he may be on, or on either “side” after all.
You attack the policies by attacking the policies. In this case, by pointing out that expanding police powers above the civil rights of American citizens, and ignoring a plethora of evidence suggesting that the police are already violating the Constitution and peoples’ rights, is bad policy that should not be supported. Make blog posts, spread the word – as MM often says, the counter to bad speech is more speech. If actual bills come down supporting this policy, write to your congresscritters encouraging them to stand against those bills. No “left” or “right” required; just say “this is bad policy that is harming the nation, here is why, here are my researched sources.” Much as Techdirt has been doing pretty much ever since I’ve read them.
“The two political parties have only one objective… the separation of the Nation. It does not matter if that is their true aim, it just happens to be the only possible outcome.”
Then the answer is calm, reasonable, rational discussion that acknowledges the arguments of those who disagree with you and presents a logical, evidence-based (where possible) reasoning behind your positions.
If ignorance is the problem, you are making it worse every time you talk about “teh left.”
Or “teh right,” too.
Re: Re: Re:6 Fake Rights
A person is their politics. If you attack either, you attack both. It’s just a fact of life and many people have died not learning that lesson. How is this finding a contradiction in what I am saying? I am okay with attacking either or! I am just saying people need to put on some thicker skin and read what their opponent is saying. I most commonly attack others for their dissonance.
Example, supporting regulation in vain attempts to control businesses when history has proven that businesses just buy those regulations.
“Then the answer is calm, reasonable, rational discussion that acknowledges the arguments of those who disagree with you and presents a logical, evidence-based (where possible) reasoning behind your positions.”
Most people are not capable of calm, reasonable, or rational discussion. They much prefer to either directly insulting others, or passively aggressively insult them WITHOUT any real follow up or discussion. I really don’t have a problem with ad hominem attacks, I just treat them like flair or an overly excited speaker. It is the end result of their thinking that concerns me. And yes, I do not intentionally mean to target ONLY the left per se… I see the ignorance as a global problem, equally shared by all. I am no exception to this problem, however I do consider myself to be less ignorant than most. No one knows everything and I have revised my own ideas about politics based on a lot of peoples feedback. But I have also hardened on some as well which is a big turn off for many.
Re: Re: Re:7 Fake Rights
“A person is their politics. If you attack either, you attack both.”
I fundamentally disagree with this statement.
“Most people are not capable of calm, reasonable, or rational discussion.”
Then don’t be most people.
Re: Re: Re:8 Fake Rights
You can disagree all you like, but you will still be wrong.
How you live your life, eat your food, wipe your own ass is affected by your politics. How you vote is affected by your politics and how you vote affects everyone. Some people are willing to harm for them.
A person IS their politics. You attack them, you attack their politics for their actions were a result of them. If you attack their politics then you attack them, for they are the culmination of all that they are!
Re: Re: Re:9 Many Re's: Fake Rights
It seems clear that this is something we will not come to an agreement on. Perhaps now is a good time for us to agree to disagree, before we take up the entire thread with this argument?
Re: Re: Re:5 Fake Rights
Dude, the world is not red or blue. And both parties are right wing in the US (by that definition). And no, they are not inexorably linked and if you analyze the left and the right as they are in practice and not on academic papers you’ll quickly see the far left is way less toxic than the far right nowadays. And remember, the last time the far right seized the power in most parts of the world we had World War II.
Re: Re: Re:6 Fake Rights
Both parties are right wing? If you mean that in the context of big business I will agree with you.
If you mean that in the context of social justice then you are plum out of your gourd.
Any far right or left seizing power will result in war. A coward invites war as much a bully incites one. All that is necessary is for people to do nothing.
Re: Re: Re:7 Fake Rights
Actually both parties are right wing. Almost every other democratic nation’s right when compared against the US is in fact equivalent to the US’s LEFT wing.
I remember alot of people being surprised by this a while back.
Re: Re: Re:8 Fake Rights
Under those circumstances then both parties can be left wing if the person reviewing them is that far to the right.
I understand that is impossible to get an unbiased opinion but it gets difficult to use labels properly when you add elements outside of everyone elses scope of knowledge. Don’t overestimate peoples ability to understand. We all have limits to our knowledge and understanding.
So yea, another nations left may make our left look right, but that is neither here nor there. I need to be more concerned with the political parties that directly affect me, I leave the indirect affects to those in power to deal with.
Re: Re: Re:3 Fake Rights
“Trump does have some leftist ideals”
Please wait while I recover from hysterical laughter.
deep breath
You don’t know what you are talking about.
Re: Re: Re:4 Fake Rights
You are free to go and read history. Of course, I can completely accept that Trump was lying then as well.
He might very well be hard core right and just like all of the other politicians lying out of his teeth. I am just saying that Trump used to hold many leftist ideas like socialized healthcare. In fact does he really intend to repeal ACA or is he just going to be like every other Politician and rework it to match his ideas? Once power is obtained in Washington they are loathe to give it up… instead they just co-opt it to fit into their own personal idea of how society should operate further removing liberty as the sycophants cheer him on!
Re: Re: Re:3 Fake Rights
So long as you think about politics on a left right axis, you will be supporting more and more authoritarian tyrants. For all the differences in noise from those two positions, the result is the same, an elite ends up ruling the serfs. The difference between the rules of Genghis Kahn and Stalin were minimal; you did what the ruler said, or suffered the consequences..
Re: Re: Re:4 Fake Rights
I would point out that the Mongolian empire was actually pretty decent about things like religious freedoms and citizen mobility, and that in Stalin’s Russia, you could do what the ruler said and STILL suffer the consequences, and in fact many, many people did what Stalin wanted and then were executed when they became problematic or as scapegoats…
…but this isn’t a history thread, so I’ll leave it there. :p
Re: Re: Re:5 Fake Rights
You are right, but that is a limited benchmark too. There are pro’s and con’s to all nations. One of the reasons I focus on liberty being the primary focus of every law and policy before it does anything else.
Re: Re: Re:4 Fake Rights
“So long as you think about politics on a left right axis, you will be supporting more and more authoritarian tyrants.”
I do agree with that statement, but it is also not a complete one. The problem is more with the parties, not the axis or ideals that each idea arrives on or which party implements. I have no problem with people applying labels to things, only children hate it. I just do not like labels being misapplied.
Parties have only one singular objective, the usurpation of the will of the people. Just like George Washington said… the pendulum swing that occurs with each change of power creates a sharper spirit of revenge until we destroy ourselves.
The isms… well most of those will always be just fine, provided the administrators of each ism is a good person. Since that is not likely to exist, instead we should focus on liberty to minimized the damage those isms will cause to the people by bad actors elected in by those people.
Here is a small treat… Congress can easily put Trump in his place, but they will not. Why will they not? Because “the people” have made it clear that they want a King, not a congress. They want to vote in a president that will do everything they want done regardless of congress. Congress just needs to do enough work to please their local voters even if they resort to corruption to accomplish those things. I only see faux outrage by “the people”. Change the diaper that is congress first and then you can put a stop to the likes of Trump or Obama! They hold the majority of power in this Nation when it comes to rule of law. The executive just executes the law, and the Judiciary determines it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Fake Rights
So far, and admittedly I have not checked today, President Trump has not issued any laws (and the Office of US President was never delegated that authority). What he has done is issued EO’s to his employees to enforce the laws already written by not enforced.
Example:
SECURE FENCE ACT OF 2006. Ratified by Congress, signed into law in 2006. (Oct 26, 2006 signed by G. Bush) Supported and voted for by Dems & Repubs, was mostly democratic legislature. DHS received 1.2 Billion to fund the wall that was never built. Where is that money? So why was this already planned in, voted for, funded but not built wall, used to agitate the people, to cause delusions of who was doing what, etc?
“This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform.”
– President George W. Bush, 10/26/06
Today, President Bush Signed The Secure Fence Act – An Important Step Forward In Our Nation’s Efforts To Control Our Borders And Reform Our Immigration System. Earlier this year, the President laid out a strategy for comprehensive immigration reform. The Secure Fence Act is one part of this reform, and the President will work with Congress to finish the job and pass the remaining elements of this strategy.
The Secure Fence Act Builds On Progress Securing The Border.
(end quote)
Re: Re: Re:3 Fake Rights
Can you show me where even one “ism” has liberty as a “corner stone”? Because all the “isms” I have studied have governmental control of all as a corner stone. Where is individual liberty in that?
Re: Re: Re:4 Fake Rights
Well, Libertarianism seems to be focused in that direction. Personal liberty held above all, the old adage of “as little government as possible; but no less,” and so on.
Re: Re: Re:4 Fake Rights
Anarchism.. it respects no right of government.
Re: Re: Fake Rights
“get over this “left versus right” thing”
They can’t, as that is all they’ve got.
They lack any meaningful ideas, all they have is hate for others – which at times is actually self hate, but they do not recognize it for what it is.
Re: Re: Re: Fake Rights
that would be not correct. As much as you find hate for them, they find it for you. And as much as you like to ridicule them they ridicule you.
It cannot be gotten over, because people get defensive or have to say… but but but… your side does this evil as a retort.
So… no… don’t get over it… lets work through it instead.
Re: Re: Re:2 Fake Rights
I… have no idea what you’re trying to say here. You say “that is not correct” and then proceed to say “well it is, but it goes the other way too,” which is kind of my point, since both left and right do the same thing. Then you say “don’t get over it, work through it,” and I really don’t understand how that would be different? Working through it leads to getting over it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Fake Rights
I took your comment on “getting over it” to mean leaving it be and not resolving the issue. It is not typically used to tell people to sit down and work out their issues in a reasonable fashion.
regarding the other comments. about lacking any meaningful ideas and only having hate makes it appear to me that you have no intention of resolving anything only that they just need to “get over it”… do you see the point I was trying to make and why I though of it that way?
Re: Re: Re:4 Fake Rights
I think I get what you mean now. I agree – attacking each other isn’t advancing any discussion or solving any problems. ^.^ Thanks for clearing it up. Now what we need to do is find a way to convince people to examine each others’ ideas without attacking them… the real challenge.
Re: Re: Re:5 Fake Rights
many people will take offense at any attempt to examine their ideas regardless of the good or bad will of the examiner.
you are right that is is indeed a real challenge.
Re: Re: Re:2 Fake Rights
Rather presumptuous.
Not sure I would call it hate, more like disdain
…. for all politics.
So, I imagine that all politicians ridicule me, or so you claim – I suppose it could be. I can see them upon their high horses wagging their fingers at the poor impoverished serfs … telling them to work harder and they will be successful. The idiots think the serfs believe that shit.
Re: Re: Fake Rights
I disagree. Fake rights achieve numerous goals, one of which is curtailing real rights. To your main point, it is not an equal opportunity abuse, it is tailor made for the goals of the left.
Re: Re: Re: Fake Rights
Fake rights: protection from offense – political protectionists, AKA the Special Snowflakes
Real rights: not being detained or searched without a warrant based on probable cause – 4th Amendment
Re: Re:
The biggest problem with the police is the UNIONS and has been for years. It’s the same problem with Teachers. The Unions grow big and corrupt. It’s all about protecting the people giving them money. Not getting rid of the corruption or bad police or teachers. They’re protected pretty good where you really have to do something BAD to get the boot and even then, not always.
Unions needs to go! Unions should have never been allowed into Government type jobs in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:
Last I checked, teachers aren’t authorized to shoot students.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
no… they just lie and corrupt them… teach little humans to respect authority and never ever challenge adults and to OBEY. Tell them that they have no rights and to indoctrinate captive audiences.
there are fates worse than death…
so yea… you missed the point.
Re: Re: Unions
Here’s a series of questions to consider:
What is the virtue of a union? I.E., what good were they formed to accomplish?
What are the issues with unions?
Critically: In what method can we achieve the virtue achieved by unions while eliminating or mitigating the issues?
To simply say out of hand that unions should be abolished, without considering what virtue they achieve and how to capture that virtue – or at least to reasonably explain why the virtue is not worth the cost – seems short-sighted. Unions didn’t start as corrupt, self-serving enterprises; they were formed for certain express purposes, as a reaction to the treatment of workers.
Re: Re: Re: Unions
Unions in the public sector should be abolished. The will of the voters should be first not a police union. The will of the voters should be first not a teachers union. Their jobs are to do as we ask. They are NOT abused in the same way that a civilian is with a corrupt business, where unions ARE needed from time to time to keep things in check, while the Government only sees to the bare minimum of things like, minimum wage, working hours which America still sucks at, and limits of how much of your life your employer is allowed to meddle in.
Re: Re: Re:2 Unions
You didn’t answer any of the questions. You didn’t even answer the one about the issues with unions.
Should the will of the voters be “we want to pay less taxes, but have more police officers, who work longer hours,” should police simply work longer hours for less pay? How about teachers? Government employees of all stripes? Their job is not to do as we ask, because what we ask can be unreasonable. Their job is to do their job; protecting, educating, ensuring the continued operation of the government. These are not robots in these positions – they are people, same as you and I, voters in their own right, with families to support and happiness to pursue.
So I will ask again: What good are unions doing? What bad are unions causing? How can we best redesign things to keep the good and mitigate or remove the bad?
Re: Re: Re:3 Unions
I did answer the questions. Read the following.
“The will of the voters should be first not a police union. The will of the voters should be first not a teachers union.”
Those lines dictate that the virtue and purpose of a Union is to put their own before the voters. Which is also the issue here.
Are you looking for expansion on them? I figured it was self explanatory. Just like the case with the police. They murder an innocent… then they get representation and special treatment and protection. Guess what a civilian gets… a strip search and rights removed and a mug shot shat all over the media. The union furthers the travesty of injustice that the government visits upon their people. Where is the same regard for the innocent? I assure you… there is none.
Re: Re: Re:4 Unions
…huh. That’s funny, I would have put that under the problems with unions, but if you wanna put it under the virtues, you go right ahead and do it.
I am not looking for an expansion, I am looking for consideration of what they actually provide (a check against unfair or prohibitive working conditions – something that is still needed for public-sector workers, at least IMO), consideration of the problems with unions (specifically in this case, that they are trying to subvert the law to protect their members, the “thin blue line” bit), and a discussion of what could be changed or put in place to ensure the first while removing the second.
Yes, there are issues with current police unions. Yes, they are very corrupt, yes, they are protecting their bad apples which is thoroughly spoiling the barrel. However, given that we have Donald Trump in office, something tells me the “will of the voters” wouldn’t be a whole lot better. Instead, we should look into what we could support that would A) protect public employees from unfair or prohibitive work conditions (reading back up to the “vote for lower taxes and longer police hours” bit), and B) be more proactive in enforcing regulations on police conduct and weeding out the “bad apples.”
Re: Re: Re:5 Unions
“…huh. That’s funny, I would have put that under the problems with unions, but if you wanna put it under the virtues, you go right ahead and do it.”
A dictionary might help here.
one of the definitions of virtue
“a good or useful quality of a thing.”
I am specifically referring to the “useful quality of the union” not implying that it HAS virtue in the “behavior showing high moral standards.” definition of the word.
“However, given that we have Donald Trump in office, something tells me the “will of the voters” wouldn’t be a whole lot better.” Obama was in office and had the chance to do something about it but did nothing. As the executive he could have easily directed his administration to federally charge them with crimes against the constitution. I don’t see the reason to single out Trumpalo here because there are many other presidents in the past that have done this exact same thing without much outcry. That said, I do agree that I see the police state getting worse under Trump, but it got worse under Obama too, and the Bushes, and Bill, and Reagan… etc.
” Instead, we should look into what we could support that would A) protect public employees from unfair or prohibitive work conditions (reading back up to the “vote for lower taxes and longer police hours” bit), and B) be more proactive in enforcing regulations on police conduct and weeding out the “bad apples.”
Sorry, that is the job of the turds we elect into office. We should not be busy attending to every problem the police have or give, we should be calling our elected and giving THEM the ear full and vote them out if they don’t handle business. This is the key failing point of most American citizens. They don’t know which throat to choke, when in fact is often their own for remaining willfully ignorant and doing nothing when they could have done something.
Re: Re: Re:2 Unions
Public sector unions are doing something fundamentally different from what private sector unions are doing. I am not per se against public sector unions; I am, however, against calling them unions and allowing them to co-opt the rich history of unionization in America.
Re: Re: Re:2 Unions
Some things can be more important than the will of the public but institutions should have a damn good reason for going against it such as rights or material functionality of the profession. An example of both would be lawyers defending “guilty” parties regardless what the public thinks about it. Another example of the second only would be doctors – it is their job to treat patients even if the public thinks of them as filthy degenerates better off left to die.
On another note teacher’s unions have more of a claim to a legitimate function over the voter’s will than police unions because they have an objective truth to protect as a duty whereas the police don’t and already have ample power over the public.
Which brings to mind the paradox of academic tenure:
In higher education if you have tenure chances are you don’t really need it – because you have already established yourself in the field well enough that you probably don’t need the protection.
In lower education if tenure is granted chances are you don’t need it but if tenure isn’t granted chances are that you do need it – because if the area respects education enough to grant tenure then they aren’t the type to flip their shit over teaching evolution, sex education, objective history, or other upsetting facts that parents don’t want taught to their children.
Re: Re:
Well, the USA is about to find out that the government and the citizens work for the corporate elite.
Re: Re: Re:
We already get that. The best we could do this time around was reject Hillary Goldman-Sachs. It’s not much, but it keeps them on their toes.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously hope none of Trump’s Cabinet nominees were infected by listening to Clinton’s speeches while they worked at Goldman Sachs.
Re: Re:
“Fake rights are the language of the left looking to expand the government at the expense of the citizen.”
There’s no left in the US.
Re: Re:
“part of the whole point of electing Trump was to remind the government of who works for whom.”
Anyone who would vote for Trump for this reason is an idiot.
Re: Re: Voting for Trump
This is exactly the sort of statement that needs to stop. It contributes nothing, it is dismissive of the views of others, and it continues to solidify the “left versus right” confrontational rhetoric of our nation. Voting for Trump for the reasoning that he is anti-establishment may have been a poor decision – there’s evidence to suggest that he was not as anti-establishment as he claimed, and plenty to suggest that he’d be on the side of big businesses rather than the faux-populist stance he took during the elections – but the fact that people voted for him for this reason is something we need to take into account and engage with, not dismiss out of hand as stupid.
Re: Re: Re: Voting for Trump
Excellent post William, I think I can agree with everything you state here!
Re: Re: Re:2 Voting for Trump
Agreed.
Re: Re: Re: Voting for Trump
hmmm, maybe not an idiot, but potentially suicidal.
Re: Re: Re:
Well…when your only alternative is Hillary Clinton…it doesn’t pay to act like there were choices on the ballot that weren’t.
That’s where folks like you keep falling down–it wasn’t Trump or the guy you really want, it was Trump or Clinton.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A successful campaign for proportional representation would solve that problem by breaking the gerrymandering lock and giving third parties a chance to be elected.
State funding for political parties to enable them to gain publicity would also help.
Re: Re:
Trump: “One of the fundamental rights of every American is to live in a safe community.”
You: “Fake rights are the language of the left looking to expand the government at the expense of the citizen.”
Your interpretation is nonsensical. Trump (who I doubt has ever been accused of being a lefty) is clearly using this language to justify scaling back government regulation over the police.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh my, where to begin. Trump has never been accused of being a lefty? Trump is more Democrat than Republican. He became a Republican because he saw an easier path to the nomination there. Much like Michael Bloomberg in New York.
Trump is trying to scale back government regulation over the police? You are aware, are you not, that the police are a government agency. Talk about nonsensical!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly the mentality of the left is, anything a republic does is always bad, never good so we have to make little caricatures out of ourselves in opposition to it.
I bet 100% that if Bush came up with ACA they would have been all over the news about how terrible this would harm the minorities and increase their costs.
If Obama was doing what Trump was doing they would have heralded a new age in democracy where reduced regulation would allow supervisors to finally do something about those dirty cops the BLM keeps hooting about.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Republicans did come up with the idea for the ACA actually.
This is fantastic. The fact that Masnick the pirate finds this news troubling makes it all the better. Hmm, yes…
Re: Re:
Oh look out of the blue balls made up another cutesy nickname white which to continue his reign of Z-grade trolling.
“Unions are part of the problem. They are definitely not part of the solution. “
This is so true in almost all cases.
Re: Re:
Well… unions with the force of law behind them are part of the problem. Unions for public sector employees should be 100% against the law. They serve no purpose other than to combat the will of the people and can only ever run contrary to that.
Unions that are allowed to force people to join them for employment are equally as counter productive. Unions should be 100% free to be formed and die as required so that the people can fight back against corruption and abuse.
Re: Re: Re:
“Unions for public sector employees should be 100% against the law. They serve no purpose other than to combat the will of the people”
Complete bullshit.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
lol… that is all you got? ad hominem? I am all for them myself, but you should at least do us the favor of making at least one single attempt to offer evidence of how I am wrong.
I think the police unions are doing just a bang up job of extensively proving me correct. You have a large mountain to clime Mr. Unfriendly person.
So how about you go and fuck yourself?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s bullshit. Public servants are specially vulnerable to the Government. There are servants here that don’t see wages adjustments with inflation for over 20 years. And we do have unions for them. Without them things would be way worse.
It’s kind of cute that most people are fast to deny basic rights to public servants and then complain when the Government doesn’t work. Would you work for free? Me neither.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Oh and as a clarification, I’m not saying that the Police unions are right no. But saying no unions are good and that they don’t have their role is ignorant at best.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Enjoy your police state… remind of your real name so I can point to your ignorance as another example?
No wait… that is not necessary, there are already too many examples for use before I expire.
No union for the public will ever benefit the nation, it will only ever work to subvert the will of the people. Whether the will of the people is wrong or right is its own problem and cannot be resolved with a union. If the will of the people is to abuse public sector workers then those workers can easy punish the people for it. have you never been to the DMV? How about wrongly accused of a crime? I have been wrong accused before and let me tell you it sucks bawls. Which side do you think the union will take? The innocent or the people they are paid to protect? The recent news should be more than enough to prove my point extensively.
There are innocents in jail because of people like you, can you rest easy at night?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Are you suggesting, then, that people being wrongly accused of crimes is simply the police “punishing” the people because the will of the people is abusive?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
That would be only ONE of the potential suggestions I am making with that statement.
Never dismiss the human capacity to visit ones own torment on others as a perverted form of justice. This logic also extends from a common trait where juries like to render guilty verdicts because they are certain that even if the accused is truly innocent of THIS crime, they feel that all of the other things discussed during the trial was worthy of punishment as well.
This reminds me of to a line from Genghis Khan.
“I am the punishment of God…If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”
The police have this exact attitude, had the citizen behaved themselves and did as they are told “regardless of their rights” they would not be there having to deal with them.
There are more than enough examples on file where the Police have allowed their prejudices interfere and put the wrongly accused in jail.
Re: Re: Re:7 MultiJustice
“Whether the will of the people is wrong or right is its own problem and cannot be resolved with a union. If the will of the people is to abuse public sector workers then those workers can easy punish the people for it.”
…I guess my problem here is that your comment seems to be lauding this sort of punishment as right and proper, the way that the police are intended to balance the will of the people. I hope that I’m wrong about that?
Re: Re: Re:8 MultiJustice
No, I do not laud these forms of punishment as right or proper. I am just saying it will occur regardless. And that occurrence will likely only be facilitated by the presence of a Union.
The Police are not intended to balance the will of the People, they are here to serve it by enforcing the law. If the will of the People is bad, then why serve it? Yes, I know that many people are easily disposed to suffer evils that are sufferable but they should resist them. If the people cannot retain the services of people willing to serve them, then they will change. They do not need to resort to punishing people even though they will, they do not need to resort to working to create a special classification for officers of the law even though they will. And because they will, we don’t need them because they do not serve the public, and the only thing any component of government should be serving is the People.
Re: Re: Re:9 MultiJustice
I’m afraid I’ve lost the thread of your point, here. Are you saying that if the will of the people is bad, the police should just quit? Are you arguing free-market supply and demand for public order? That seems to be rather short-sighted, in a “burn it all down” way.
So, in the interest of clarification: How would you like to see this situation resolved? We outlaw unionization for public employees, and then… what?
Re: Re: Re:10 MultiJustice
“Are you saying that if the will of the people is bad, the police should just quit?”
That is one potential answer. They can also go to the press and express their grievances or go and protest. They don’t need a union that is legitimized or recognized by the state to do these things.
“Are you arguing free-market supply and demand for public order? That seems to be rather short-sighted, in a “burn it all down” way.”
Yes, there should be a free-market for that. Public order is everyone’s responsibility but the Officers Job. Do you get what I am after here? The Police should be an extension of the will of the people, not just Agents of Law and Order because if that is all they are, then they legally free to become tyrants as long as the law allows it which is occurring, and despite the will of the people.
though I am not sure why you think we should just move to the burn it all down stage, a bit over dramatic there don’t you think?
Re: Re: Re:11 MultiJustice
Alrighty, I think I get where you’re coming from. Thanks for the clarification ^.^
Re: Re: Re:12 MultiJustice
You are welcome sir!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Whoa whoa there little Skippy, slow down a sec.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Your first fail.
“Unions for public sector employees should be 100% against the law. They serve no purpose other than to combat the will of the people”
Your second fail.
“So how about you go and fuck yourself?”
Your third fail.
“Unions that are allowed to force people to join them for employment are equally as counter productive. Unions should be 100% free to be formed and die as required so that the people can fight back against corruption and abuse.”
Your 4th fail.
Unions in general are a great idea and most of them i.e Plumbers, electricians, IATSE, etc. are decent organizations that look out for their members. The two Unions that are continually problematic are Police and Teachers.
Your blanket statement of:
“Unions for public sector employees should be 100% against the law. They serve no purpose other than to combat the will of the people”
shows a complete lack of understanding in how a Union works.
So… yeah… complete bullshit.
Right for the wrong reason
Steve Loomis, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, had a blunt message for Donald Trump during a meeting in September: court-ordered reforms aimed at curbing police abuses in the midwestern city are not working.
He’s actually completely right here, ‘court-ordered reforms aimed at curbing police abuse’ aren’t working, the problem is the reason he’s right is because of him and those like him, and the police in general, not because they impose an ‘unfair burden’ on police.
When you’re trying to reign in rampant abuse the efforts are only going to be as effective as the enforcement and punishments handed out, and given the government and police have shown absolutely no interest in keeping the police in check, any ‘reforms’ are wasted, as if police don’t feel like following them they simply don’t, safe in the knowledge that the worst they’ll have to deal with is some finger wagging.
Re: Right for the wrong reason
A good cop who covers for a bad cop IS a bad cop.
He played basketball with some kids? That’s great! But he also looked the other way while another officer planted drugs on someone.
He helped deliver a baby? That’s great! But he also allowed another officer to taser someone as punishment for mouthing off.
He bought shoes for a homeless man? That’s great! But he also refused to testify against an officer who threatened, abused, harassed, and extorted money from prostitutes.
The police do more self-promotion than they do self-policing.
Re: Re: Right for the wrong reason
“A good cop who covers for a bad cop IS a bad cop.”
should be…
“A cop who covers for or gives pass too a bad cop IS a bad cop.”
all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. You don’t have to cover to be a bad cop… all you have to do to become bad is do nothing.
Re: Re: Right for the wrong reason
A good cop who covers for a bad cop IS a bad cop.
Exactly so, this is why despite believing even now that most cops aren’t overtly abusive and are likely decent enough people, I also believe that the overwhelming majority of cops do not qualify as ‘good cops’, because that same majority who aren’t likely to directly abuse their power and authority don’t do squat about the ones who do, if they’re not outright defending them.
If you only consider a cop a ‘bad cop’ if they directly abuse their power and authority, then barring localized exceptions most cops are ‘good cops’.
If you consider a cop a ‘bad cop’ if they directly abuse their power and authority or protect and/or enable the ones who do, then barring individual exceptions most cops are not ‘good cops’.
Re: Right for the wrong reason
“We had some members already in a position to quickly infiltrate the protest organizations that were active in support of Operation Sabot. I myself assumed an identity of an individual from another state with all of the necessary elements to ensure success of my assigned responsibilities. Working during the day, I would travel by night to meetings and protests in various cities. Most weekends were consumed with assimilating reports from other operatives, grooming equipment and planning our activities. Our entire team had immense support from Oath Keepers senior leadership…..
Of the major police departments we have worked with, Cleveland, Philadelphia and New York City were by far the most responsive.”
https://www.oathkeepers.org/navyjack-operation-hypo-action-report/
Chillax Everyone...
This is ALREADY a police state. Has been since I can remember when the War on Drugs started. The use of civil forfeiture laws gave the police everything they needed to crush anyone without money to defend themselves. And even makes it possible to crush the rich if they don’t have any friends.
The Republicans are more in love with the police state, but I do not see many Democrats trying to fight it even a little bit at the top. All they do is pay some lip smacking service to the sycophant voters they easily fool.
All we are doing now is just discussing how bad of a “Police State” we wish to be.
Unions aren't all bad
Most Unions are bad.
But take for example a nurse at a hospital.
Hospital wants to save money so they cut nursing staff.
Nurses who remain have to take on more patients.
A nurse who has to many patients may not be able to give each individual the care they need.
In fact an overworked nurse can lead to mistakes, mistakes that could lead to a patient’s death, mistakes that could cause the nurse to lose their nursing license.
So a nurses union that stipulated a max number of patients based of difficulty of care would save lives and livelihoods.
A nurse would not have to lose their nursing licence so a hospital can save money.
Re: Unions aren't all bad
Their are of course, exceptions to every rule. After reading your example, I’m a little surprised that nurses unions are even required. I would think, for liability purposes, that hospitals would self police things like this and a nurses union wouldn’t be needed.
Re: Re: Unions aren't all bad
…and you wouldn’t see a conflict of interest, vesting the review of nurse conditions in the facility that is paying for their employment?
Re: Re: Unions aren't all bad
You (the general you, not you specifically) would think that about a lot of things corporations do… but insurance and (more often) corporate structures protect senior management from the consequences of their decisions. Unions can act as a check on that.
Re: Re: Unions aren't all bad
Economics expects people to act rationally in their self-interest.
The problem is that people are short-sighted little shits and don’t have a good goddamn clue about how to behave rationally.
Most unions got their birth back in the day when helping low-class workers band together to oppose monopsony or monopoly- a single source of employment, or a single source of vital goods. (Mine owners, or rail transportation for farmers).
I imagine most people on this site are in agreement that monopolies or duopolies are bad and inclined to abuse, and that individual people cannot fight them very effectively. There you go.
But obviously, that hardly means they’re all good, either.
Alternatively ---
::coughcough:: Cancelled FBI investigation into white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement, anyone? (Intercept article here.)
I mean, I’m not one for conspiracy theories … unless, you know, the FBI report them as fact … and then appear to be told to stop looking?
Say it with me, this time with feeling!
This is how you create a Police State!
I realize we can’t expect logic from a buffoon such as Trump but it doesn’t take much to realize that if you want to run “a law and order administration” that you need MORE control over the police, not less.
Law and order must start with the people who enforce it – if they will not follow the law then why should anyone else?
This should be non-partisan. Even if you feel that the government should be imposing less regulation on society you have to admit that proper enforcement of what regulation there is requires a fully compliant force. Giving them more latitude doesn’t help anyone.
Re: "I AM the law!"
It’s a ‘We’re the Good Guys’/’It’s not illegal if the president does it’ issue.
To someone that sees the police and those like them as the ‘Good Guys Who Can Do No Wrong’, then clearly anything that limits their ability(like say laws and constitutional rights and whatnot) to do something is the problem, not the police.
If the law prevents a fishing expedition that might have caught a criminal, then clearly the law is in the wrong and needs to be changed, because the law isn’t there to protect criminals, but to punish them.
That getting rid of the law would open up vastly more innocent people than guilty to having their stuff searched for no good reason is a sacrifice the police will bravely let the public shoulder, and any that object are doing so because they support criminals or are a criminal themself.
Michael LeMieux: “The Constitution has very little to do with the American citizen. It was written to establish a Federal Government and to place the boundaries by which that government would operate. The constitution was never designed to provide or enumerate the rights of the citizens but to restrain the federal government from meddling in state and ultimately citizen affairs.”
The Trump Administration will be a law and order administration.”
President Trump will a “law and order administration” only if he and his administration follow the US Constitution. Why?
Because the US Constitution defines our governments – state and federal; it assigns the delegated authorities/powers to the different BRANCHES and to OFFICES within a branch – not to any person or group of people. Those that serve within our state and federal governments are under that/those contract(s). Here under our LEGITIMATE government there are no such things as “emergency powers”, “martial law”, “assassination powers” (First Degree Murder powers). Those exist only in other nations.
IF they cannot do their job as the supreme and highest (state – if applicable) contracts requires of them then they need to look for another profession, because – as with any job contract – then they cannot do the job. There is no complaint when they are fired for breaking the LOWEST contract they are under, the one with whatever enforcement they signed on to – it is expected.
To make the supreme and highest contracts lawfully stronger, those who serve within our governments are REQUIRED to take an Oath to support and defend the US Constitution (and their own state’s Constitution) before the orders of superiors and the duties of the position they occupy (Those who serve as US Presidents are held to a higher standard of Preserving, Protecting and Defending the US Constitution).
Breaking the Oath(s) are a felony and the crime of Perjury, and those that serve knew this, or should have, going into the governmental position.
If President Trump says yes to those who are working to destroy our nation from within (Yes, THAT is exactly what those requests are for), then we need to remove him, and those who were doing the asking.
Ask yourself this, Does the job you are working for let you rewrite your work contract, give yourself raises, decide what duties you will do and not do? Neither does our supreme LAW (another law they will be breaking, and if also state job, then 2 more LAWS they will be breaking))
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”
Mack and Printz v. United States: “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service – and at no cost to itself – the police officers of the 50 States… Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”
Treason – Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States provides: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”
*Terrorism: 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
If they are aiding in the destruction of our legitimate government by requiring that those who serve within our governments behave as if they are a tyrant or king, and since this is “enforcement” asking, force or the threat of force is always there in there official actions. By asking they are working to change our type of government from a constitutional republic in an unlawful and illegal way. (Yes, I know it has been done before, but that it continues is our fault.)
Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.
Re: Re:
^This.
Remove the identifier and guess what
If you remove the identifiers that show the prosecution and grand juries who was and who wasn’t an officer during interactions, it would actually give us justice. Until then, we have a class of super citizens (the cops) who enjoy all of the rights and protections that originally were given to all here. Now they have the presumption of innocence, but everyone else deserves anything we get since we are “suspects”.
Re: Remove the identifier and guess what
Spot on. I’ve kicked around a similar idea myself for a good while now, that whether or not someone is a cop shouldn’t even be brought up in court, the accused should be judged on what they did, not whether or not they had a badge.
If doing X would get a non-cop a finding of guilt and jail time, then it should be no different for a cop, they shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind their badge.
Re: Re: Remove the identifier and guess what
I can get completely behind this 100%. Same goes for a cop offering testimony that the accused lied to them during questioning. There is no reason to trust the word of an officer any more than random Joe/Jane on the street!
Re: Re: Remove the identifier and guess what
Not a terrible idea, but I’m seeing an issue with context; it may be difficult or nigh-impossible to remove the labels without stripping context away from encounters. After all, if you remove the “cop” label, the jury might be wondering why the accused was carrying a gun in the first place, or why the person took off running upon seeing them, or why the person pulled over when the unlabelled cop rolled up on them… it may be impossible to give a jury a proper overview of the situation without either saying outright, or constructing in a way in which the jury can easily infer, who was a cop in any given situation.
Re: Re: Re: Remove the identifier and guess what
It’s certainly an idea that could do with refinement, and might indeed be non-viable for the reason you mention, the point is simply to strip away the badge so that they’re judged on what they do rather than what they are.
Re: Re: Re: Remove the identifier and guess what
“After all, if you remove the “cop” label, the jury might be wondering why the accused was carrying a gun in the first place,”
In America we have the Right to keep and bear arms. It has of course been shat upon extensively but there should never be the question of “why do you have a gun with you?” The only question should be “Why DONT you have a gun with you?”. I would very much enjoy the protection offered by fellow citizens in arms. And so do some officers.
“or why the person took off running upon seeing them,”
To avoid justice or danger? Running from a cop is not an automatic admission of guilt, if I was wrongly accused of being a cop killer I would run because I cannot trust a fair or safe trial will be supplied. It’s not like my fellow citizens will give a shit if a cop mows my ass down.
“it may be impossible to give a jury a proper overview of the situation without either saying outright, or constructing in a way in which the jury can easily infer, who was a cop in any given situation.”
I would challenge that assertion. A simple telling of the facts should be enough. Since a citizen can forcibly detain another citizen under citizens arrest, provided it is clear that the guilty was breaking the law, all that matters at that point is the evidence in regards to the arrested. Proper law enforcement will handle the rest.
Most identification beyond that is really just for edification, but ultimately adds no relevancy except in very rare cases which can be addresses as needed.
Re: Re: Re:2 Remove the identifier and guess what
I’m not attacking gun rights, maestro, don’t worry ^.^
As for citizen’s arrest, I’m not sure it’s in the same general space; questions that might come up would include “why didn’t they call the police,” which would seem pretty silly on the face of it if the person they’re referring to is the police and they just don’t know it. It also doesn’t answer the question about pulling over in a traffic stop, or entry for no-knock warrants (which would be one of the big “bad things happened here” areas for police misconduct, I would think, given some of the stories I’ve heard about no-knocks), and on and on…
Mind you, like I said before, it’s not a terrible idea. It would be ideal, I think, if we could simply remove the public assumption that police officers are “right-er” than private citizens, and remove a lot of the protections they get from the consequences of their wrongdoing; naturally, that would be harder to accomplish (if it’s accomplishable at all).
In circumstances where a plain telling of the facts could support not labeling police officers as police in front of a jury, I think this system would work fine; I just wonder how often that would be applicable.
Re: Re: Re:3 Remove the identifier and guess what
“As for citizen’s arrest, I’m not sure it’s in the same general space; questions that might come up would include “why didn’t they call the police,””
I am almost certain that question would be answered in the determination, and as “That One Guy” said… there would be refinements.
“Mind you, like I said before, it’s not a terrible idea. It would be ideal, I think, if we could simply remove the public assumption that police officers are “right-er” than private citizens, and remove a lot of the protections they get from the consequences of their wrongdoing; naturally, that would be harder to accomplish (if it’s accomplishable at all).”
There is a strong possibility that we agree on the end goal but disagree on how to achieve that end. When it comes to modifying public opinions or expectations the devil is truly in the details. There are so many ways to corrupt opinions that we require very specific instructions for juries. Unfortunately we do not give very good ones, but they should always begin with and example of how juries are fooled or toyed with and a warning to not allow themselves to become fooled by witty lawyers. Of course a Judge is there to help avoid this, but there are many subtle ways to poison a jury under the watchful eye of a discerning judge.
In most peoples minds, it is more important on HOW your phrase the story, than the result of the story itself. I am sure there is a great story teller that could make watching paint dry an insightful and interesting journey… I have yet to meet them, but I have meet others like them that have engage my curiosity over subjects I once though unworthy of my own attentions.
Re: Re: Re:4 LotsaRe's: Remove the identifier and guess what
Hah, isn’t that how it always works? Agreeing on the end goal, and disagreeing on the path there?
Honestly, trying to get into the nitty-gritty with this idea is beyond me, IANAL after all; it’s a fascinating thought but it also seems pretty clear that nothing like it is gonna happen for the next four years, and probably not after that. Our legal system is just… kind of a mess.
But yes, ultimately we do agree on the end product: Cops should not be exempt from the law just because they uphold it, and should not receive preferential treatment when they commit wrongdoings. So we’re on board together there, at least. :3
Aaanyways, I gotta head off to work now; been an interesting little thread to participate in, hopefully we’ll have some fresh perspectives when I get back. ^.^ Salut!
Re: Re: Re:5 LotsaRe's: Remove the identifier and guess what
(Unrelated thought of the day: Am I the only one who thinks IANAL sounds like an unnecessary personal confession?)
Re: Re: Re:6 LotsaRe's: Remove the identifier and guess what
ha ha ha….
Yea… I think it really might be a confession!
Respect mah Authoritah
(Any authoritah i claim for myself.)
Dirtbags
Also remember that the rate of domestic abusers amongst the cops is approximately 50%.
Fun? Damn Mental!
"One of the fundamental rights of every American is to live in a safe community."
Yup, we call it the Second Amendment, and we’re free to exercise it or not to ensure whatever degree of "safety" we prefer against whatever encroachments we perceive.
If they did their job...
The anti-police atmosphere is a result of the anti-constitution attitudes and practices of the police departments – they’ve brought it on themselves.
The police, unions and so on keep using phrases like "police and public partnership".
Well, I’m sorry, but there is no partnership involved.
The police are public servants, they are there to serve the people. They are not our partners, they are our subordinates.
Unfortunately, they have gotten above themselves and view themselves as the masters, the ones in charge, the ones who make the rules. But like any employee, servant, subordinate who has elevated themselves above their actual bosses, employers, they need to be smacked down and put back in their place. Or let go to find a job that better suits them.
welllllll mister anderson.....
how can you complain if you have no mouth
Sadly, too many in America feel the same as Trump. Like my friend. His attitude is that virtually anything the police do is justified because “people wouldn’t get hurt if they obeyed the police like they’re supposed to” and “being a cop is a dangerous job”. Those two phrases justify, in his mind, virtually anything the police do, no matter how abusive or outrageous.
He can listen to a dozen experts describe why the police are out of control and not believe any of it, but let him hear one officer claim that cops are being killed by the dozens every single day and he believes every single word of it.
And in the ridiculously rare instance that the police do do something wrong, he believes that it’s easily remedied by a quick trip to court with a good lawyer.
Re: Re:
That’s almost impressive. I mean naivety is one thing, but willful blindness that bad has got to take some real dedication on his part.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s the same with everything Trump does.
Me: Trump fired the acting attorney general for questioning his immigration ban. The state department was also told that they should fall in line or look for new jobs.
Him: Good! He’s the president, they should do what he says.
Me: Federal judges are saying the ban may be illegal.
Him: It’s to keep us safe!
Me: How? he excluded the very countries that the 911 hijackers came from?
Him: Those are bad countries and we need to stop the bad people from coming here!
Me: But how does that keep us safe if he excluded-
Him: IF YOU LOVE THOSE COUNTRIES SO MUCH WHY DON’T YOU GO AND LIVE THERE?!!
Me: What do you think of his hiring freeze on government jobs?
Him: Good! They’ll be saving money.
Me: The National Park Service says this is going to be a disaster as they now can’t hire the 8,000 seasonal workers they need to staff the parks.
Him: Our state had a hiring freeze on park workers a while back. The world didn’t end.
Me: Trump kept talking about voter fraud and how they need to crack down on people who are registered in two different states, but yet some of his team are registered to vote in two different states.
Him: As long as they don’t vote in more than one state, there’s nothing wrong with that.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sounds like a walking manifestation of the very concept of authoritarian. "If they’re in charge they’re right by definition, no matter what they do."
If you’re ever bored and feel like giving yourself a headache perhaps ask him if there is anything Trump could realistically do that he would object to, I imagine the answer would be instructive, though likely not too surprising if you’ve known him long.
Make America great for once. lol