How southern cops go bad when dealing with blacks

First topic message reminder :

This happened on Sunday, in southern Virginia.  A military officer was pulled over for not having a license plate...when he did have a license plate (as shown in video) and the cops just missed it.  The police in America are hostile and provoking black stops...just to show white superiority over blacks...maybe kill one.  The cop calls it in as a "felony stop".  A FELONY for having a license??  It was a ruse, in order to harass, and possibly kill a black.

Cops are conducting a war on black lives.



This is the south.  This is why black men are losing their lives, at the drop of a hat, in southern states.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

This from a libertarian? Unions are built upon the same idea of the First Amendment, freedom to associate. In a libertarian world, would people be prevented from associating?

The fact is, it's not the unionizing that is is the evil, but the fact that the unions are permitted way too much interference in public/individual rights. This relates to a bigger problem, that police chauvinism supersedes public well-being. Politicians and police (and the public) give too much weight to the functions of autharitarian policing, and too little weight to the impact on the public rights.

This is why reordering police departments is the only way things will change. Demonstrators say ban the police, but that is with a little bit of bitterness mixed in; what the politicians should be doing, is to refocus the job of policing, taking away some powers that should fall to social workers and mental health providers. To send police out there--whose first purpose is conflict and combat--is a recipe for disaster.

The British system of policing is built upon conflict resolution, not conflict escalation. It's a much wiser way to go.

In a libertarian world private workers could associate.

Government workers are public servants and can't organize against the needs of the public.

I agree. The potential for a conflict-of-interest is too close for comfort. That's an excellent argument for changing the focus of policing.

As I said, "This relates to a bigger problem, that police chauvinism supersedes public well-being." We perceive of our police as our warriors, and the people they police as the enemy. But, so often the so-called enemy is us, or people with mental deficiencies, on drugs, on alcohol, or other social issues. Yet we continue to send in our warriors--the police--with only one mission in mind: get your way, or inflict damage!

Against that backdrop, and some racial bias mixed in, of course we are going to a 33% success rate, and a lot of deaths. The answer isn't banning unions. It's reorienting the mission.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

In a libertarian world private workers could associate.

Government workers are public servants and can't organize against the needs of the public.

I agree.  The potential for a conflict-of-interest is too close for comfort.    That's an excellent argument for changing the focus of policing.

As I said, "This relates to a bigger problem, that police chauvinism supersedes public well-being."  We perceive of our police as our warriors, and the people they police as the enemy.  But, so often the so-called enemy is us, or people with mental deficiencies, on drugs, on alcohol, or other social issues.  Yet we continue to send in our warriors--the police--with only one mission in mind: get your way, or inflict damage!

Against that backdrop, and some racial bias mixed in, of course we are going to a 33% success rate, and a lot of deaths.  The answer isn't banning unions.  It's reorienting the mission.

And when the unions won't budge on reorienting the mission?

It's not for them to "budge on reorienting the mission". It's up to the chain of command.

Command has got the upper hand when it comes to "mission". That's what the 'workers' are hired to do.

Original Quill wrote:It's not for them to "budge on reorienting the mission".  It's up to the chain of command.  

Command has got the upper hand when it comes to "mission".  That's what the 'workers' are hired to do.

Are you saying to ignore collective bargaining agreements?

What you want is a union in name only.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's not for them to "budge on reorienting the mission". It's up to the chain of command.

Command has got the upper hand when it comes to "mission". That's what the 'workers' are hired to do.

Are you saying to ignore collective bargaining agreements?

What you want is a union in name only.

Not at all. CB agreements are always subordinate to job requirements. After all, if the worker can’t do the job, as advertised, he is misrepresenting himself.

It goes without saying, the union can’t have a CB agreement that misstates the job.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Are you saying to ignore collective bargaining agreements?

What you want is a union in name only.

Not at all.  CB agreements are always subordinate to job requirements.  After all, if the worker can’t do the job, as advertised, he is misrepresenting himself.

It goes without saying, the union can’t have a CB agreement that misstates the job.

The CB agreements define the job requirements in some cases.

What purpose does a union serve for a public worker?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not at all.  CB agreements are always subordinate to job requirements.  After all, if the worker can’t do the job, as advertised, he is misrepresenting himself.

It goes without saying, the union can’t have a CB agreement that misstates the job.

The CB agreements define the job requirements in some cases.

No. Never.

Maddog wrote:What purpose does a union serve for a public worker?

Joining together in unions enables workers to negotiate for higher wages and benefits and improve conditions in the workplace.  https://aflcio.org/what-unions-do

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The CB agreements define the job requirements in some cases.

No. Never.

Maddog wrote:What purpose does a union serve for a public worker?

Joining together in unions enables workers to negotiate for higher wages and benefits and improve conditions in the workplace.  https://aflcio.org/what-unions-do

Improve conditions.

That's where the public sector unions protect bad employees. Because getting fired for being a shitty cop is a bad work condition.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No. Never.



Joining together in unions enables workers to negotiate for higher wages and benefits and improve conditions in the workplace.  https://aflcio.org/what-unions-do

Improve conditions.  

That's where the public sector unions protect bad employees. Because getting fired for being a shitty cop is a bad work condition.

Nonsense.

"In a forthcoming study, Rob Gillezeau, a professor and researcher, concluded that, from the nineteen-fifties to the nineteen-eighties, the ability of police to collectively bargain led to a substantial rise in police killings of civilians, with a greater impact on people of color. “With the caveat that this is very early work,” Gillezeau wrote on Twitter, on May 30th, “it looks like collective bargaining rights are being used to protect the ability of officers to discriminate in the disproportionate use of force against the non-white population.”

Other studies revealed that many existing mechanisms for disciplining police are toothless. WBEZ, a Chicago radio station, found that, between 2007 and 2015, Chicago’s Independent Police Review Authority investigated four hundred shootings by police and deemed the officers justified in all but two incidents."

Maddog wrote:"In a forthcoming study, Rob Gillezeau, a professor and researcher, concluded that, from the nineteen-fifties to the nineteen-eighties, the ability of police to collectively bargain led to a substantial rise in police killings of civilians, with a greater impact on people of color. “With the caveat that this is very early work,” Gillezeau wrote on Twitter, on May 30th, “it looks like collective bargaining rights are being used to protect the ability of officers to discriminate in the disproportionate use of force against the non-white population.”

Other studies revealed that many existing mechanisms for disciplining police are toothless. WBEZ, a Chicago radio station, found that, between 2007 and 2015, Chicago’s Independent Police Review Authority investigated four hundred shootings by police and deemed the officers justified in all but two incidents."

As a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, and an instructor at the University of Arizona Police Academy, I questioned whether it was union activity, or simply the ethos of the police environment.

If CB rights were causative of police killings, particularly of blacks, there would be a connection demonstrated: Union CB contracts >> killings of civilians. They can never find it. What they do is map the statistics, which can be spurious in certain cases.

What they do find is that union representatives meet with overly-lenient opposition from management, suggesting that there is a ‘good ole boy’ network, as in police chauvinism. It is a very specific network, based upon an inner-circle that only police and people in police-related occupations, can enter.

It begins with the adversarial relationship that police have with the public in general. Police feel closed out, which in turn creates an insular response within the circle.

Under ordinary circumstances, the adversarial relationship of CB agreements would be between contracting parties. But in this case, the feeling of allegiance to the insular police circle supersedes the adversarial relationship of the collective bargaining process, and you end up with a CB process that is weakened, or non-existent.

Union contracts do not cause the civilians killings; it’s just that they sure don’t help. And bad patrol officers are encouraged by seeing this, and feel protected by the general insular ethos. You hear this expressed in military circles all the time: It’s not for god and country; but for the protection of the guy next to you. Police, in hostile environs, follow the same path.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:"In a forthcoming study, Rob Gillezeau, a professor and researcher, concluded that, from the nineteen-fifties to the nineteen-eighties, the ability of police to collectively bargain led to a substantial rise in police killings of civilians, with a greater impact on people of color. “With the caveat that this is very early work,” Gillezeau wrote on Twitter, on May 30th, “it looks like collective bargaining rights are being used to protect the ability of officers to discriminate in the disproportionate use of force against the non-white population.”

Other studies revealed that many existing mechanisms for disciplining police are toothless. WBEZ, a Chicago radio station, found that, between 2007 and 2015, Chicago’s Independent Police Review Authority investigated four hundred shootings by police and deemed the officers justified in all but two incidents."

As a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, and an instructor at the University of Arizona Police Academy, I questioned whether it was union activity, or simply the ethos of the police environment.

If CB rights were causative of police killings, particularly of blacks, there would be a connection demonstrated: Union CB contracts >> killings of civilians.  They can never find it.  What they do is map the statistics, which can be spurious in certain cases.

What they do find is that union representatives meet with overly-lenient opposition from management, suggesting that there is a ‘good ole boy’ network, as in police chauvinism.  It is a very specific network, based upon an inner-circle that only police and people in police-related occupations, can enter.

It begins with the adversarial relationship that police have with the public in general.  Police feel closed out, which in turn creates an insular response within the circle.

Under ordinary circumstances, the adversarial relationship of CB agreements would be between contracting parties.  But in this case, the feeling of allegiance to the insular police circle supersedes the adversarial relationship of the collective bargaining process, and you end up with a CB process that is weakened, or non-existent.

Union contracts do not cause the civilians killings; it’s just that they sure don’t help.  And bad patrol officers are encouraged by seeing this, and feel protected by the general insular ethos.  You hear this expressed in military circles all the time: It’s not for god and country; but for the protection of the guy next to you.  Police, in hostile environs, follow the same path.

Unions protect  bad officers.

Bad officers are a danger to society.

Maddog wrote:Unions protect bad officers.

Bad officers are a danger to society.

Guns kill people.

Killing is a danger to society.

Are you now finally buying that logic? Or do you continue to maintain guns don't kill people, people do! If so, I would say that unions don't protect bad officers, the people in union positions do.

The big problem with police is the insular attitude, coupled with power of deadly force. You can blame any organization built around police officers, but that is merely because the organization is co-terminus with the police.

The real problem is the responsibility we put on them. We give them the power of judge, jury and executioner, give them minimal education, and ask them to be objective. You gotta know that some of 'em are going to cheat. The union is just the vehicle by which they cheat.

Another cop killing of a minority, 13-year old boy, Adam Toledo:

Original Quill wrote:Another cop killing of a minority, 13-year old boy, Adam Toledo:

In Chicago, where unions protect bad cops.

Put this on your northern cops killing people thread.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Another cop killing of a minority, 13-year old boy, Adam Toledo:

In Chicago, where unions protect bad cops.  

Put this on your northern cops killing people thread.  

I'm betting there was a southern cop in the fray.