"Would you want your town policed by these men?"
December 2, 2014 9:22 AM Subscribe
How Police Unions and Arbitrators Keep Abusive Cops on the Street
Officers fired for misconduct often appeal the decision and get reinstated by obscure judges in secretive proceedings.
Officers fired for misconduct often appeal the decision and get reinstated by obscure judges in secretive proceedings.
While I agree that the issues presented are shocking and intolerable, I find the summation troubling:
I'd rather see 10 wrongful terminations than one person wrongfully shot and killed. Because good police officers and bad police officers pay the same union dues and are equally entitled to labor representation, police unions have pushed for arbitration procedures that skew in the opposite direction. Why have we let them? If at-will employment, the standard that would best protect the public, is not currently possible, arbitration proceedings should at a minimum be transparent and fully reviewable so that miscarriages of justice are known when they happen. With full facts, the public would favor at-will employment eventually.
This is classic crab thinking. The issue is that the arbitration is secret (this is one of the few cases where there is a compelling interest for the public to know what is happening) and that the arbitrators are captured (the unions remember which arbitrators rule against them, and make sure they're not chosen again.) Both of these issues have simple fixes (require arbitration of police officers on any matter dealing with the public to be public record, require justifiable reason for rejection of specific arbitrators to be given.) Making the police serve at will isn't a solution, and in fact has some dangerous knock on effects - for example, what happens when the local government changes, and they decide to purge the police ranks?
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:46 AM on December 2, 2014 [33 favorites]
I'd rather see 10 wrongful terminations than one person wrongfully shot and killed. Because good police officers and bad police officers pay the same union dues and are equally entitled to labor representation, police unions have pushed for arbitration procedures that skew in the opposite direction. Why have we let them? If at-will employment, the standard that would best protect the public, is not currently possible, arbitration proceedings should at a minimum be transparent and fully reviewable so that miscarriages of justice are known when they happen. With full facts, the public would favor at-will employment eventually.
This is classic crab thinking. The issue is that the arbitration is secret (this is one of the few cases where there is a compelling interest for the public to know what is happening) and that the arbitrators are captured (the unions remember which arbitrators rule against them, and make sure they're not chosen again.) Both of these issues have simple fixes (require arbitration of police officers on any matter dealing with the public to be public record, require justifiable reason for rejection of specific arbitrators to be given.) Making the police serve at will isn't a solution, and in fact has some dangerous knock on effects - for example, what happens when the local government changes, and they decide to purge the police ranks?
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:46 AM on December 2, 2014 [33 favorites]
I have the same grump with this that I do with anything blaming union arrangements - they don't happen all by themselves. The union requests and negotiates. If employers agree to those terms they're just as culpable, if not more. If the NFL can hard-line with umpires over that is less than a hundredth of a percentage of the ticket sales for a game then I think cities can refuse to agree to terms with bad oversight.
The problem with your argument is that it ignores the political power the police unions wield. It's hard to negotiate hard when the other side can hold your career over your head.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:50 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
The problem with your argument is that it ignores the political power the police unions wield. It's hard to negotiate hard when the other side can hold your career over your head.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:50 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
The issue is that the arbitration is secret (this is one of the few cases where there is a compelling interest for the public to know what is happening) and that the arbitrators are captured (the unions remember which arbitrators rule against them, and make sure they're not chosen again.)
its funny how privacy rights, union rights and the idea that laymen ought to vote on a grand jury indictment rather than have a prosecutor just do it all get tossed out the window as inconvenient when the alleged bugbear is so bad that hey, the rules ought to be tossed out for just this one case.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:53 AM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
its funny how privacy rights, union rights and the idea that laymen ought to vote on a grand jury indictment rather than have a prosecutor just do it all get tossed out the window as inconvenient when the alleged bugbear is so bad that hey, the rules ought to be tossed out for just this one case.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:53 AM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
I guess I just don't understand how unions can be too powerful to negotiate with but weak enough to disband or neuter entirely at the same time.
Aside from that, the union bugaboo crops up with all sorts of unions, not just police. The reality is that the unions often play politics better than actual politicians who seem to think it's just easier to shrug and give in since it's not their money. I'm not giving anyone good citizenship medals here, but the blame goes all around.
posted by phearlez at 10:02 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Aside from that, the union bugaboo crops up with all sorts of unions, not just police. The reality is that the unions often play politics better than actual politicians who seem to think it's just easier to shrug and give in since it's not their money. I'm not giving anyone good citizenship medals here, but the blame goes all around.
posted by phearlez at 10:02 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
The problem with your argument is that it ignores the political power the police unions wield. It's hard to negotiate hard when the other side can hold your career over your head.
Really? Police unions wield very little power. Ask Mayor Giuliani about that. He put his own internal affairs cops on to the police union and they spent days following union officials around and videotaping their every move.
I can't think of a single time when a police union really held any balance of power in any election. Not a single time. Its massively exaggerated.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:02 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Really? Police unions wield very little power. Ask Mayor Giuliani about that. He put his own internal affairs cops on to the police union and they spent days following union officials around and videotaping their every move.
I can't think of a single time when a police union really held any balance of power in any election. Not a single time. Its massively exaggerated.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:02 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
this is one of the few cases where there is a compelling interest for the public to know what is happening
What? Who says things like this? You don't think the public has a compelling interest to know what's done in their name and with their money and borrowed authority? Madness.
posted by phearlez at 10:06 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
What? Who says things like this? You don't think the public has a compelling interest to know what's done in their name and with their money and borrowed authority? Madness.
posted by phearlez at 10:06 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
its funny how privacy rights, union rights and the idea that laymen ought to vote on a grand jury indictment rather than have a prosecutor just do it all get tossed out the window as inconvenient when the alleged bugbear is so bad that hey, the rules ought to be tossed out for just this one case.
Wow, that is a funny strawman! The issue isn't with union rights or laymen grand juries, it's that these concepts are convenient smokescreens for miscarriages of justice that a strong, self-governing self-certifying union (IBEW, for instance) or a grand jury with an ethical and invested prosecutor and objective judge would prevent.
Police unions use arbitration in a way no other union, public or private, does, and the Grand Jury in the Michael Brown case was corrupted by slanted public officials looking put a thumb on the scales.
The issue isn't to toss out the rights of workers or grand juries. No one is arguing that, or if they are, they're not seeing the real and serious issue - corruption and malfeasance in the justice system that is not being addressed.
One modification I'd like to see is for liability for civil lawsuits stemming from officer misconduct to be placed on the union, and then give the union stronger tools to train, certify and audit its members - and re-assign or dismiss its own members if proven necessary by a documented process.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:06 AM on December 2, 2014 [13 favorites]
Wow, that is a funny strawman! The issue isn't with union rights or laymen grand juries, it's that these concepts are convenient smokescreens for miscarriages of justice that a strong, self-governing self-certifying union (IBEW, for instance) or a grand jury with an ethical and invested prosecutor and objective judge would prevent.
Police unions use arbitration in a way no other union, public or private, does, and the Grand Jury in the Michael Brown case was corrupted by slanted public officials looking put a thumb on the scales.
The issue isn't to toss out the rights of workers or grand juries. No one is arguing that, or if they are, they're not seeing the real and serious issue - corruption and malfeasance in the justice system that is not being addressed.
One modification I'd like to see is for liability for civil lawsuits stemming from officer misconduct to be placed on the union, and then give the union stronger tools to train, certify and audit its members - and re-assign or dismiss its own members if proven necessary by a documented process.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:06 AM on December 2, 2014 [13 favorites]
its funny how privacy rights, union rights and the idea that laymen ought to vote on a grand jury indictment rather than have a prosecutor just do it all get tossed out the window as inconvenient when the alleged bugbear is so bad that hey, the rules ought to be tossed out for just this one case.
Because rights are not absolute, and the rights of the officer need to be counterbalanced with the right of the community to not have abusive officers patrolling. Furthermore, I only think that the public should be involved when the matter affects them directly - in any purely administrative matter, the normal rules should be followed regarding privacy.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:07 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Because rights are not absolute, and the rights of the officer need to be counterbalanced with the right of the community to not have abusive officers patrolling. Furthermore, I only think that the public should be involved when the matter affects them directly - in any purely administrative matter, the normal rules should be followed regarding privacy.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:07 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
And the reason they are secret is because the law says that government records of private individuals are private. Its called the Privacy Act and it has analogues in every state and major city. But yes, let us throw that away because we believe it to be inconvenient in this particular case. Why don't we allow for all sorts of exceptions to the rule. Why that will benefit everyone, won't it?
Seriously, if the DA has let a letter of declination out, there is no reason why the public has to see every detail of every disciplinary case. The material can be had in discovery by parties alleging wrong doing, so there is no negative for a person who believes that they have been wronged by police misconduct.
Finally, the arbitration comes after the Trial Board for the officer. Which is an open hearing. Which is why this is a red herring.
The idea that workers rights should be abolished because its convenient tears at me.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:07 AM on December 2, 2014
Seriously, if the DA has let a letter of declination out, there is no reason why the public has to see every detail of every disciplinary case. The material can be had in discovery by parties alleging wrong doing, so there is no negative for a person who believes that they have been wronged by police misconduct.
Finally, the arbitration comes after the Trial Board for the officer. Which is an open hearing. Which is why this is a red herring.
The idea that workers rights should be abolished because its convenient tears at me.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:07 AM on December 2, 2014
Police unions use arbitration in a way no other union, public or private, does, and the Grand Jury in the Michael Brown case was corrupted by slanted public officials looking put a thumb on the scales.
How many police arbitration hearings have you attended? Would love to know.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:09 AM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
How many police arbitration hearings have you attended? Would love to know.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:09 AM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
Mod note: Ironmouth, I understand this is a topic you have knowledge and interest in, but you absolutely need to not be holding court here. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 10:11 AM on December 2, 2014 [25 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 10:11 AM on December 2, 2014 [25 favorites]
i saw one on tv once
posted by poffin boffin at 10:12 AM on December 2, 2014 [20 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 10:12 AM on December 2, 2014 [20 favorites]
The problem with your argument is that it ignores the political power the police unions wield.
Yup. In Wisconsin, every other public employee except for police and firefighters lost their ability to negotiate anything but pay. The state also forces the city to pay the union dues of police officers, something that wasn't done for any other public employee union member in the state.
posted by drezdn at 10:20 AM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
Yup. In Wisconsin, every other public employee except for police and firefighters lost their ability to negotiate anything but pay. The state also forces the city to pay the union dues of police officers, something that wasn't done for any other public employee union member in the state.
posted by drezdn at 10:20 AM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
And the reason they are secret is because the law says that government records of private individuals are private. Its called the Privacy Act and it has analogues in every state and major city. But yes, let us throw that away because we believe it to be inconvenient in this particular case. Why don't we allow for all sorts of exceptions to the rule. Why that will benefit everyone, won't it?
What are you even talking about? Are you deliberately lying or muddying the water here? The privacy act binds federal agencies, so unless we're suddenly talking about FBI agents and not cops who work for state law enforcement I don't even know why you're bringing it up. As state employees cops have a lot of their employment facts open to the world, just as most state employees do. States often have additional carve-outs for cop (and sometimes fire dept) personnel, but in no way would that have anything to do with the privacy act.
Pretending that there's some huge umbrella for "government records" about employees of the state is hugely disingenuous and you should be ashamed of yourself.
posted by phearlez at 10:35 AM on December 2, 2014 [26 favorites]
What are you even talking about? Are you deliberately lying or muddying the water here? The privacy act binds federal agencies, so unless we're suddenly talking about FBI agents and not cops who work for state law enforcement I don't even know why you're bringing it up. As state employees cops have a lot of their employment facts open to the world, just as most state employees do. States often have additional carve-outs for cop (and sometimes fire dept) personnel, but in no way would that have anything to do with the privacy act.
Pretending that there's some huge umbrella for "government records" about employees of the state is hugely disingenuous and you should be ashamed of yourself.
posted by phearlez at 10:35 AM on December 2, 2014 [26 favorites]
from the Department of Justice webpage, a few citations.
posted by phearlez at 10:40 AM on December 2, 2014 [15 favorites]
State and local government agencies are not covered by the Privacy Act. See, e.g., N’Jai v. Piitsburgh Bd. of Public Educ., No. 11-3320, 2012 WL 2019186, at *2 (3d Cir. June 6, 2012) (per curiam); Spurlock v. Ashley County, 281 F. App’x 628, 629 (8th Cir. 2008); Schmitt v. City of Detroit, 395 F.3d 327, 331 (6th Cir. 2005); Perez-Santos v. Malave, 23 F. App’x 11, 12 (1st Cir. 2001) (per curiam); Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 1999); Ortez v. Washington County, Or., 88 F.3d 804, 811 (9th Cir. 1996); Brown v. Kelly, No. 93-5222, 1994 WL 36144, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 27, 1994) (per curiam); Monk v. Teeter, No. 89-16333, 1992 WL 1681, at *2 (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 1992); Davidson v. Georgia, 622 F.2d 895, 896 (5th Cir. 1980); Dean v. City of New Orleans, No. 11-2209, 2012 WL 2564954, at *14 (E.D. La. July 2, 2012); Oliver v. Garfield County Det. Facility, No. CIV-10-1281, 2012 WL 668802, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 8, 2012); Goins v. Beard, No. 09-1223, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104442, at *28 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2011); Ervin v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 1:10-cv-01859, 2011 WL 3503181, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011); Omegbu v. United States, No. 10-C-765, 2011 WL 2912703, at *5 (E.D. Wis. July 18, 2011); Roggio v. City of Gardner, No. 10-40076, 2011 WL 1303141, at *7 (D. Mass. Mar. 30, 2011); Terry v. Town of Morristown, No. 06-1788, 2010 WL 3906938, at *6 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2010); Manuel v. City of Philadelphia, No. 10-2690, 2010 WL 3566767, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2010); Prepetit v. Gov’t of D.C., No. 09 2183, 2009 WL 4405756, at *1 (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2009); Study v. United States, No. 3:08cv493, 2009 WL 2340649, at *2 (N.D. Fla. July 24, 2009); Rouse v. City of New York, No. 08CV7419, 2009 WL 1532054, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2009); Banda v. Camden County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, No. 08-5115, 2009 WL 1561442, at *2 (D.N.J. May 29, 2009); Willis v. DOJ, 581 F. Supp. 2d 57, 67-68 (D.D.C. 2008); Barickman v. Bumgardner, No. 1:07CV134, 2008 WL 2872712, at *3 (N.D. W. Va. July 22, 2008);I left off the last 60% of the cites.
posted by phearlez at 10:40 AM on December 2, 2014 [15 favorites]
I'd argue that this is just one more bit of evidence that binding arbitration is an idea that just doesn't really work except for those in power. It's just a broken idea and it needs to be scrapped or, at least massively reformed.
We also need some vastly stricter standards for acceptable behavior by cops, and some clear line in the sand "do this shit, get fired" rules that the unions agree to. But honestly I bet we could solve most of the problems by ending this secret arbitration by a police chosen arbitrator nonsense and pushing it into a real court with some daylight shining on the case.
I've seen firsthand how binding arbitration works, I worked at a place where lawyers who did arbitration were employed, and it works by having the arbitrator blatantly on side with the powerful party (that is, the one who forced binding arbitration and is paying the arbitrator) and rubber stamping a form that says "the guy who hired me is right". Mostly I've seen this from the other side: non-unionized workers forced into arbitration over employment disagreements settled by an arbitrator hired by the employer. The arbitrator laughs about it, literally laughs about it, with their colleagues. They find the very concept that they might find for the employee to be side splittingly funny.
And yes, that's anecdotal. But I find it difficult to believe that what I saw wasn't commonplace among arbitrators.
Scrap the arbitrators, put cases like this back in open courts where they belong, and you'll see the number of bad cops put back into a police department after they were fired drop overnight.
As for policing in general, I'd say if we disincentivized theft by the police (that is, ended the stupidity of asset forfeiture) and called off the War on Drugs we'd be 90% of the way to solving the problem. End the economic push for the police to steal from the citizens, and end the money that keeps the police focusing on black people to the virtual exclusion of other citizens and social/market forces that create bad cops will be mostly gone. If we could either scrap entirely the use of SWAT teams other than their original stated purpose (hostage situations) or at least start firing people after they bash in the wrong door more than once it'd solve most of the rest of the problem. Get rid of the programs funneling military gear to cops, and maybe pass a few laws forbiding police departments from buying military gear and forcing them to get rid of what they've got, and you'd solve almost all the cop problems.
posted by sotonohito at 10:40 AM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
We also need some vastly stricter standards for acceptable behavior by cops, and some clear line in the sand "do this shit, get fired" rules that the unions agree to. But honestly I bet we could solve most of the problems by ending this secret arbitration by a police chosen arbitrator nonsense and pushing it into a real court with some daylight shining on the case.
I've seen firsthand how binding arbitration works, I worked at a place where lawyers who did arbitration were employed, and it works by having the arbitrator blatantly on side with the powerful party (that is, the one who forced binding arbitration and is paying the arbitrator) and rubber stamping a form that says "the guy who hired me is right". Mostly I've seen this from the other side: non-unionized workers forced into arbitration over employment disagreements settled by an arbitrator hired by the employer. The arbitrator laughs about it, literally laughs about it, with their colleagues. They find the very concept that they might find for the employee to be side splittingly funny.
And yes, that's anecdotal. But I find it difficult to believe that what I saw wasn't commonplace among arbitrators.
Scrap the arbitrators, put cases like this back in open courts where they belong, and you'll see the number of bad cops put back into a police department after they were fired drop overnight.
As for policing in general, I'd say if we disincentivized theft by the police (that is, ended the stupidity of asset forfeiture) and called off the War on Drugs we'd be 90% of the way to solving the problem. End the economic push for the police to steal from the citizens, and end the money that keeps the police focusing on black people to the virtual exclusion of other citizens and social/market forces that create bad cops will be mostly gone. If we could either scrap entirely the use of SWAT teams other than their original stated purpose (hostage situations) or at least start firing people after they bash in the wrong door more than once it'd solve most of the rest of the problem. Get rid of the programs funneling military gear to cops, and maybe pass a few laws forbiding police departments from buying military gear and forcing them to get rid of what they've got, and you'd solve almost all the cop problems.
posted by sotonohito at 10:40 AM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
phearlez, don't forget that Ironmouth is a lawyer working for a police union, he's pretty much guaranteed to say anything, true or not, that will defend the status quo.
posted by sotonohito at 10:41 AM on December 2, 2014 [17 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 10:41 AM on December 2, 2014 [17 favorites]
Not only that, but the argument that we're finding these rules "inconvenient" is rather disingenuous. The argument being presented is that the police occupy a unique position in our society, and as such they aren't like other workers because of that aspect. The Jacobin piece linked to in the article points out the problem - when the police organize, they do so as police, with all that entails socially.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:43 AM on December 2, 2014 [13 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:43 AM on December 2, 2014 [13 favorites]
its funny how privacy rights, union rights and the idea that laymen ought to vote on a grand jury indictment rather than have a prosecutor just do it all get tossed out the window as inconvenient when the alleged bugbear is so bad that hey, the rules ought to be tossed out for just this one case.
Well yes, because when I was a grocery clerk in a union, I couldn't murder customers that annoyed me and get away with it.
posted by empath at 10:44 AM on December 2, 2014 [33 favorites]
Well yes, because when I was a grocery clerk in a union, I couldn't murder customers that annoyed me and get away with it.
posted by empath at 10:44 AM on December 2, 2014 [33 favorites]
I had never minded Ironmouth's well-established bias but I was literally shocked by this. I'm just stunned.
posted by phearlez at 10:44 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 10:44 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
It's a bummer that any real discussion on how to get bad cops off our streets is preempted by people claiming we already have rules for that. Yeah sure, but the point is that those rules are opaque and arbitrarily enforced, if at all. If anything, the police should be held to higher standards than the average citizen.
posted by monospace at 10:45 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by monospace at 10:45 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
One modification I'd like to see is for liability for civil lawsuits stemming from officer misconduct to be placed on the union, and then give the union stronger tools to train, certify and audit its members - and re-assign or dismiss its own members if proven necessary by a documented process.
Why do that? Just take away qualified immunity for civil suits, make cops carry brutality insurance and then give the cops a raise equal to the insurance for someone who isn't a complete fuckup. The problem will solve itself.
posted by Talez at 10:48 AM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
Why do that? Just take away qualified immunity for civil suits, make cops carry brutality insurance and then give the cops a raise equal to the insurance for someone who isn't a complete fuckup. The problem will solve itself.
posted by Talez at 10:48 AM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
And the reason they are secret is because the law says that government records of private individuals are private.
Are we talking about a review of someone's eligibility to serve on a police force, or something else? Because the former strikes me as very much a public matter.
Why don't we allow for all sorts of exceptions to the rule.
So... exceptions to the rule, or even overlapping rules with tension between them -- these are uncommon in US law?
posted by weston at 10:50 AM on December 2, 2014
Are we talking about a review of someone's eligibility to serve on a police force, or something else? Because the former strikes me as very much a public matter.
Why don't we allow for all sorts of exceptions to the rule.
So... exceptions to the rule, or even overlapping rules with tension between them -- these are uncommon in US law?
posted by weston at 10:50 AM on December 2, 2014
"I'd rather see 10 wrongful terminations than one person wrongfully shot and killed."
I think everybody agrees with this but I don't think the writer understands what this entails. It's hard to recruit cops especially in particularly violent neighborhoods where everybody hates you. Keeping them around is only more difficult. And rookies make rookie mistakes. See the most recent incident in Brooklyn.
There's a chance that if you just fired everybody all the time there would be even more mistakes. Their pay would be lower, they would be less skilled, and they would be less willing to work at a job where there's little chance of a stable, lifelong income. Eliminate the violence in neighborhoods and you will eliminate most of the issues with the police.
posted by destro at 10:51 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
I think everybody agrees with this but I don't think the writer understands what this entails. It's hard to recruit cops especially in particularly violent neighborhoods where everybody hates you. Keeping them around is only more difficult. And rookies make rookie mistakes. See the most recent incident in Brooklyn.
There's a chance that if you just fired everybody all the time there would be even more mistakes. Their pay would be lower, they would be less skilled, and they would be less willing to work at a job where there's little chance of a stable, lifelong income. Eliminate the violence in neighborhoods and you will eliminate most of the issues with the police.
posted by destro at 10:51 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Why do that? Just take away qualified immunity for civil suits, make cops carry brutality insurance and then give the cops a raise equal to the insurance for someone who isn't a complete fuckup. The problem will solve itself.
Sorry, but that's a horrid idea. Qualified immunity exists for good reason - without it, there are people who would use the courts to bind the police in lawsuits. What we need is to be more willing to recind it in cases of misconduct.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:52 AM on December 2, 2014
Sorry, but that's a horrid idea. Qualified immunity exists for good reason - without it, there are people who would use the courts to bind the police in lawsuits. What we need is to be more willing to recind it in cases of misconduct.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:52 AM on December 2, 2014
This thread has been linked in the huge MetaTalk thread already in progress.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 10:52 AM on December 2, 2014
posted by Elementary Penguin at 10:52 AM on December 2, 2014
NoxAeternum: "This is classic crab thinking"
Thanks for this term - I'd never heard it before, and I've always just thought of it as a corollary or inverse of "Fuck you! I got mine"...
posted by symbioid at 10:56 AM on December 2, 2014
Thanks for this term - I'd never heard it before, and I've always just thought of it as a corollary or inverse of "Fuck you! I got mine"...
posted by symbioid at 10:56 AM on December 2, 2014
It's really just an intractable problem. Aside from unions, you have prosecutors that work with cops and need to maintain the illusion that they never lie or cheat. You have so-called 'good cops' that depend on bad cops to keep them safe while they're working. You have politicians that depend on police unions to win elections. The only way to fix the problem, it seems to me, is a protracted effort on the federal level to prosecute cops, and I don't see where the political push for that to happen comes from. Liberals depend on being seen as being pro-police, and conservatives are basically in favor of cops killing black people.
posted by empath at 10:58 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by empath at 10:58 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
And, btw, if you think 'cameras' are the answer here, you're probably being naive. Cops will find ways to lose them or otherwise 'accidentally' obscure them or break them before beating people.
posted by empath at 10:59 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by empath at 10:59 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
destro, if we ended the War on blacksDrugs much of the hate of the police would end fairly quickly. Solve the policy level problems and the individual level problems either get solved or become vastly more manageable.
I'll also say that if policing is such a horrible job that basically we have to give it to bullies who get off on abusing power because no one else will put up with the job then maybe we need to rethink our entire approach to policing and police work.
empath, I must disagree. The problem isn't intractable, and there's baby steps towards fixing it. One of the roots of the problem is the War on Drugs. End that and a lot of other problems get vastly less difficult. And we're seeing that starting with the growing movement to legalize marijuana. It isn't a complete end to the War on Drugs, but it's a good start.
posted by sotonohito at 11:00 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'll also say that if policing is such a horrible job that basically we have to give it to bullies who get off on abusing power because no one else will put up with the job then maybe we need to rethink our entire approach to policing and police work.
empath, I must disagree. The problem isn't intractable, and there's baby steps towards fixing it. One of the roots of the problem is the War on Drugs. End that and a lot of other problems get vastly less difficult. And we're seeing that starting with the growing movement to legalize marijuana. It isn't a complete end to the War on Drugs, but it's a good start.
posted by sotonohito at 11:00 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't see it as being intractable, though. One of the key aspects - the political power that police unions wield - is eroding as demographics shift and people become less trusting of the police in general. Once that breaks down, the structure itself becomes unstable.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:03 AM on December 2, 2014
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:03 AM on December 2, 2014
While the topic is unfortunately too loaded with heated rhetoric and heavy baggage at this moment to be properly discussed, my hope is that one day we can eliminate the scourge on our justice system that is arbitration. We have the best justice system possible, and the attempts by those with power to extract matters out of the system into the realm of arbitration is far more of a critical systemic problem than this country realizes.
posted by dios at 11:05 AM on December 2, 2014 [19 favorites]
posted by dios at 11:05 AM on December 2, 2014 [19 favorites]
The problem with your argument is that it ignores the political power the police unions wield.
I just witnessed an impressive display of police union power abuse near me on the 'liberal' Left Coast. It seems the Police Union in Arroyo Grande, California was dissatisfied with their last contract negotiations with the appointed City Manager and elected Mayor, both with over 10 years service to the town. There was gossip about the Manager having a relationship with an underling, and one evening a group of five cops, "patrolling", said they saw something suspicious at City Hall and went in, finding the Manager and underling, disappointingly fully dressed and claiming to be 'recovering' in the Manager's office from a little 'overindulging' at a city party. It instantly mutated, with the provocation of a local Breitbart-style 'news' website into a Major Sex Scandal, and after the Mayor and City Council failed to promptly fire the scoundrel, campaigns for opponents to the Councillors suddenly became very well funded, and the Mayor, who had no opposition when the deadline for candidates had already passed, was suddenly faced with a write-in opponent who had been a resident of the city for three whole years. Mr. Write-In (as well as one opponent Council candidate) won in the recent November election, the City Manager has 'had his resignation accepted' and the new Mayor and Acting Manager are no doubt taking meetings with the Police Union right now to right any past 'wrongs' (just don't expect the muckraking local media to see it happening). As for me, I've decided to avoid shopping within the Arroyo Grande city limits, and advise anybody driving up Highway 101 that if you're going to get off the freeway at any of the 4 A.G. offramps, be sure you're showing a "Support the Police" bumper sticker.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:09 AM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
I just witnessed an impressive display of police union power abuse near me on the 'liberal' Left Coast. It seems the Police Union in Arroyo Grande, California was dissatisfied with their last contract negotiations with the appointed City Manager and elected Mayor, both with over 10 years service to the town. There was gossip about the Manager having a relationship with an underling, and one evening a group of five cops, "patrolling", said they saw something suspicious at City Hall and went in, finding the Manager and underling, disappointingly fully dressed and claiming to be 'recovering' in the Manager's office from a little 'overindulging' at a city party. It instantly mutated, with the provocation of a local Breitbart-style 'news' website into a Major Sex Scandal, and after the Mayor and City Council failed to promptly fire the scoundrel, campaigns for opponents to the Councillors suddenly became very well funded, and the Mayor, who had no opposition when the deadline for candidates had already passed, was suddenly faced with a write-in opponent who had been a resident of the city for three whole years. Mr. Write-In (as well as one opponent Council candidate) won in the recent November election, the City Manager has 'had his resignation accepted' and the new Mayor and Acting Manager are no doubt taking meetings with the Police Union right now to right any past 'wrongs' (just don't expect the muckraking local media to see it happening). As for me, I've decided to avoid shopping within the Arroyo Grande city limits, and advise anybody driving up Highway 101 that if you're going to get off the freeway at any of the 4 A.G. offramps, be sure you're showing a "Support the Police" bumper sticker.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:09 AM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
Eliminate the violence in neighborhoods and you will eliminate most of the issues with the police.
I am amazed that there are people whose experiences with police seem to have always been positive.
I'm a middle class white dude. If I were to base my opinion on cops just from my interactions with them, well, I wouldn't have a very high opinion of them. As it is, even as I accept that my experiences color my feelings, I still don't think that highly of them.
The problem is that however many "good cops" there are - you never know which shitbrained power hungry asshole you get.
Cops are a mafia.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:10 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
I am amazed that there are people whose experiences with police seem to have always been positive.
I'm a middle class white dude. If I were to base my opinion on cops just from my interactions with them, well, I wouldn't have a very high opinion of them. As it is, even as I accept that my experiences color my feelings, I still don't think that highly of them.
The problem is that however many "good cops" there are - you never know which shitbrained power hungry asshole you get.
Cops are a mafia.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:10 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Also, the privacy act (and it's state analogues) are primarily designed to protect personal information. Professional information (often raised in the context of disciplinary proceedings and professional records in medicine, law, and other licensed professions) is regularly excluded.
posted by mercredi at 11:22 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by mercredi at 11:22 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
I think the job of "police officer" has devolved in a similar manner as the job of "politician" has. The kind of person who you would want in the job wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, and the the kind of person you really don't want having that level of authority is exactly the type that gets hired.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:24 AM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 11:24 AM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
Wow. I knew the issue of arbitration was broad, I didn't know it was broad enough to put me into 100% agreement with dios.
posted by sotonohito at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
Mafioso who earn ~$50,000 a year and have to deal with violence on a regular basis. How many programmers and graphic designers here are willing to drop their comfy coding jobs and sign up for that luxurious lifestyle?
Eliminating the war on drugs would go a long way to helping things, but the dynamic is much more complicated than that. These areas need businesses that are not part of the drug business to thrive and provide jobs.
posted by destro at 11:28 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Eliminating the war on drugs would go a long way to helping things, but the dynamic is much more complicated than that. These areas need businesses that are not part of the drug business to thrive and provide jobs.
posted by destro at 11:28 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Also, the privacy act (and it's state analogues) are primarily designed to protect personal information. Professional information (often raised in the context of disciplinary proceedings and professional records in medicine, law, and other licensed professions) is regularly excluded.
Thank you for this. Perfect rebuttal to the 'privacy rights' nonsense BS above. Even as a civil servant, sure, you have the right to privacy in your personal life (unless/until you make it public, which is where I personally carve out exceptions for those whose positions are political--e.g. a tax-avoiding politician campaigning on tax reform having their private business outed), but you do not have the right to privacy in your professional doings. That counts double when your professional doings include implementing the state monopoly on violence.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:30 AM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
Thank you for this. Perfect rebuttal to the 'privacy rights' nonsense BS above. Even as a civil servant, sure, you have the right to privacy in your personal life (unless/until you make it public, which is where I personally carve out exceptions for those whose positions are political--e.g. a tax-avoiding politician campaigning on tax reform having their private business outed), but you do not have the right to privacy in your professional doings. That counts double when your professional doings include implementing the state monopoly on violence.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:30 AM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
Wow. I knew the issue of arbitration was broad, I didn't know it was broad enough to put me into 100% agreement with dios.
posted by sotonohito at 1:26 PM on December 2
I don't know if it was your intention, but that comes across to me as an unnecessary and unwarranted insult, as if I am such a bad person you are shocked you might ever agree with me on something. It does not help the discussion, and I would appreciate it on a personal level if you would keep any need to insult me (or anyone else) personally. If it was not intended as an insult, please accept this as a sincere expression that it reads that way.
posted by dios at 11:33 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 1:26 PM on December 2
I don't know if it was your intention, but that comes across to me as an unnecessary and unwarranted insult, as if I am such a bad person you are shocked you might ever agree with me on something. It does not help the discussion, and I would appreciate it on a personal level if you would keep any need to insult me (or anyone else) personally. If it was not intended as an insult, please accept this as a sincere expression that it reads that way.
posted by dios at 11:33 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
destro, if we ended the War on blacksDrugs much of the hate of the police would end fairly quickly.
And so would a lot of the Police jobs. Do we want some of these people wandering the streets unemployed and possibly unemployable?
Cops are a mafia.
Back in the 1980s, LAPD Police Chief Daryl Gates, facing a "gang explosion" in some parts of the city, and complaining that the LAPD had about 1/4 the 'cops per capita' of the NYPD, openly declared the intent to make the Police "the baddest gang in the city". Many of his supporters didn't quite grok what that meant until after the Rodney King beating and the Rampart Division Scandal (which came out after Gates had retired). But then, some other of his supporters already had a 'protection money' fund that ensured that, no matter how otherwise-liberal elected officials in L.A. were, very few could ever be labeled 'anti-police'.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:35 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
And so would a lot of the Police jobs. Do we want some of these people wandering the streets unemployed and possibly unemployable?
Cops are a mafia.
Back in the 1980s, LAPD Police Chief Daryl Gates, facing a "gang explosion" in some parts of the city, and complaining that the LAPD had about 1/4 the 'cops per capita' of the NYPD, openly declared the intent to make the Police "the baddest gang in the city". Many of his supporters didn't quite grok what that meant until after the Rodney King beating and the Rampart Division Scandal (which came out after Gates had retired). But then, some other of his supporters already had a 'protection money' fund that ensured that, no matter how otherwise-liberal elected officials in L.A. were, very few could ever be labeled 'anti-police'.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:35 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
destro, true but once the police stop seeing black people as a resource to drain money from, we'll start seeing an increase in black economic wellbeing. Don't forget that asset forfeiture is a weapon mainly aimed at black and brown people, and it has been extracting literally billions from those populations annually for over a decade now. If black plumbers and carpenters and painters and whatnot weren't having their life savings and the necessary tools for their jobs stolen by police because a criminal looking to get a reduced sentence from the DA said he saw them smoking a joint once the black and brown communities would be economically much better off.
The ghetto is public policy, and a public policy largely enforced today by the War on Drugs. End it and the ghetto will break up and economic conditions for minorities will get better.
dios, I apologize I had absolutely no intention of that being read as an insult but in retrospect I can see how it very easily could. I meant only that given the vast gulf between us in most other policy areas I was surprised to find us in agreement on this particular bit of policy.
It is easy for me to fall into the trap of believing that when a person, like you, is vigorously opposed to most of the things I support, and I'm vigorously opposed to most of the things you support, that this opposition is universal. It's a failure of reason on my part, and I'm (foolishly) surprised when it is proven false (which happens once every month or so). That's all I meant, though again I can understand how you and others might read what I said as an insult and I apologize for that. I should have either said what I meant more clearly or simply not wasted space on this forum with my own private revelation.
posted by sotonohito at 11:38 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
The ghetto is public policy, and a public policy largely enforced today by the War on Drugs. End it and the ghetto will break up and economic conditions for minorities will get better.
dios, I apologize I had absolutely no intention of that being read as an insult but in retrospect I can see how it very easily could. I meant only that given the vast gulf between us in most other policy areas I was surprised to find us in agreement on this particular bit of policy.
It is easy for me to fall into the trap of believing that when a person, like you, is vigorously opposed to most of the things I support, and I'm vigorously opposed to most of the things you support, that this opposition is universal. It's a failure of reason on my part, and I'm (foolishly) surprised when it is proven false (which happens once every month or so). That's all I meant, though again I can understand how you and others might read what I said as an insult and I apologize for that. I should have either said what I meant more clearly or simply not wasted space on this forum with my own private revelation.
posted by sotonohito at 11:38 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
Thorzdad: "I think the job of "police officer" has devolved in a similar manner as the job of "politician" has. The kind of person who you would want in the job wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, and the the kind of person you really don't want having that level of authority is exactly the type that gets hired."
Not only that, but at least in some departments, cops are refused admission due to not having a low enough IQ.
I don't know how common this is, but the court sees no problem in having a bunch of idiots enforcing the law, and not just not a problem but that it's even ok to discriminate in favor of the idiots.
posted by symbioid at 11:39 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Not only that, but at least in some departments, cops are refused admission due to not having a low enough IQ.
I don't know how common this is, but the court sees no problem in having a bunch of idiots enforcing the law, and not just not a problem but that it's even ok to discriminate in favor of the idiots.
posted by symbioid at 11:39 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Mafioso who earn ~$50,000 a year and have to deal with violence on a regular basis.
Only the violence of their expanding waistlines. Police work is far less dangerous than lots of other occupations, and those jobs don't carry either the worker protections or the sympathy that the police engender.
Besides, the median salary is 56k and the top 10% earn north of 95k - with a guaranteed lifetime pension. For a job that only requires a diploma and features a near total lack of oversight, no real accountability, and absolutely no risk of jail time ever for anything you might ever do.
Seems like a sweet gig to me.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:42 AM on December 2, 2014 [16 favorites]
Only the violence of their expanding waistlines. Police work is far less dangerous than lots of other occupations, and those jobs don't carry either the worker protections or the sympathy that the police engender.
Besides, the median salary is 56k and the top 10% earn north of 95k - with a guaranteed lifetime pension. For a job that only requires a diploma and features a near total lack of oversight, no real accountability, and absolutely no risk of jail time ever for anything you might ever do.
Seems like a sweet gig to me.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:42 AM on December 2, 2014 [16 favorites]
Mafioso who earn ~$50,000 a year and have to deal with violence on a regular basis. How many programmers and graphic designers here are willing to drop their comfy coding jobs and sign up for that luxurious lifestyle?
Regarding the Hamilton shooting:
Policing has problems but appropriate compensation ain't one.
posted by phearlez at 11:43 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
Regarding the Hamilton shooting:
Officer is 'getting by'That's for a job that doesn't require a STEM degree, so paralleling it to coders isn't really a good one (and I'm not sure how we became some sort of paragon of desirable hires anyway). It may or may not be a number - for pension purposes - that includes common overtime pay or side work that can only be landed by police officers.
Two days before the firing, Manney filed for disability retirement, a program designed as a safety net for Milwaukee police and firefighters who suffer physical or psychological injuries on the job. If approved, Manney's retirement — which would include about 75% of his salary, tax-free — will take precedence over his dismissal because he applied before he was fired.
Manney is among an increasing number of officers suspected of misconduct who have applied for duty disability claiming debilitating stress — sometimes even citing the department's investigation or media coverage as the cause of that stress.
A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigation published last year found at least five police officers had received duty disability during or after a disciplinary investigation since 2006. Because the former officers don't have to pay taxes on the money, their take-home pay is about the same as when they were working. Manney, who was hired in 2001, received total pay of about $72,000 in 2012.
Policing has problems but appropriate compensation ain't one.
posted by phearlez at 11:43 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
This should be handled like any other civil proceeding: people should have the right to have irrelevant personal information protected in such proceedings (e.g., irrelevant medical history, financial information, etc.) with the focus being on whether the information is legally relevant. They should not have the right to keep the existence of the allegations and relevant facts against them private. We don't do Star Chambers here.
posted by dios at 11:49 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by dios at 11:49 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yes, they have good benefits. Mainly because they have a union. But while it may not be the highest risk occupation (7th I think), it certainly is high risk. And the numbers from the BLS don't really slice it up by neighborhood. It's much more dangerous to be a cop in Baltimore or Trenton than say Beverly Hills. If you selected for just those areas, I imagine the risk rate would be much higher.
And if it was so comfy, then more people would be signing up to be cops. Then maybe all the issues about community policing would be resolved.
posted by destro at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
And if it was so comfy, then more people would be signing up to be cops. Then maybe all the issues about community policing would be resolved.
posted by destro at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
It is easy for me to fall into the trap of believing that when a person, like you, is vigorously opposed to most of the things I support, and I'm vigorously opposed to most of the things you support, that this opposition is universal.
Respectfully, that is not the trap that is the problem. The trap is you believing that you even know what I am "vigorously opposed to." You certainly have no basis to think I am opposed to "most of the things" you support. Frankly I have no idea what you support, but I would heavily wager that you do not know even 5 things I am opposed to that you support; nor could you state 5 things that I support that you vigorously oppose. The reality is that I very rarely state my personal views about things here--this is one of those very rare times.
The trap--and you are not alone in doing this--is assuming that my statements that show/promote an understanding of different perspectives is somehow an approval of those different perspectives. That isn't the case.
But I accept your explanation that no insult was intended, and I will not carry this matter further but will go in peace.
posted by dios at 12:01 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Respectfully, that is not the trap that is the problem. The trap is you believing that you even know what I am "vigorously opposed to." You certainly have no basis to think I am opposed to "most of the things" you support. Frankly I have no idea what you support, but I would heavily wager that you do not know even 5 things I am opposed to that you support; nor could you state 5 things that I support that you vigorously oppose. The reality is that I very rarely state my personal views about things here--this is one of those very rare times.
The trap--and you are not alone in doing this--is assuming that my statements that show/promote an understanding of different perspectives is somehow an approval of those different perspectives. That isn't the case.
But I accept your explanation that no insult was intended, and I will not carry this matter further but will go in peace.
posted by dios at 12:01 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
I don't know how common this is, but the court sees no problem in having a bunch of idiots enforcing the law, and not just not a problem but that it's even ok to discriminate in favor of the idiots.
Doing pretty much anything based on intelligence tests is a really bad idea, but please be careful when you're throwing language like "idiot" around in this context: there's a long history of IQ tests (and many other tests) being used to justify prejudice against Black people (among others, especially ESL folks and people with developmental disabilities). It's a terrible policy, don't get me wrong, and a bad way to screen overqualified applicants. But there's a lot more at work in how we societally view intelligence and it fucks with a lot of people, and I think it's important to try not to reinforce the bad social ways it can be used.
posted by NoraReed at 12:11 PM on December 2, 2014
Doing pretty much anything based on intelligence tests is a really bad idea, but please be careful when you're throwing language like "idiot" around in this context: there's a long history of IQ tests (and many other tests) being used to justify prejudice against Black people (among others, especially ESL folks and people with developmental disabilities). It's a terrible policy, don't get me wrong, and a bad way to screen overqualified applicants. But there's a lot more at work in how we societally view intelligence and it fucks with a lot of people, and I think it's important to try not to reinforce the bad social ways it can be used.
posted by NoraReed at 12:11 PM on December 2, 2014
COPS ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS
LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS
posted by ennui.bz at 12:18 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS
posted by ennui.bz at 12:18 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
But while it may not be the highest risk occupation (7th I think), it certainly is high risk.
No, it's really not and it's less risky all the time. Being a civilian - particularly a black one - is the risky bit.
Oh, and Baltimore? Here's the last 10 years:
Baltimore City Police Department, Maryland
Police Officer Forrest Edward "Dino" Taylor
Baltimore City Police Department
EOW: Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Cause: Automobile accident
Baltimore City Police Department, Maryland
Police Officer William Henry Torbit, Jr.
Baltimore City Police Department
EOW: Sunday, January 9, 2011
Cause: Gunfire (Accidental)
Baltimore City Police Department, Maryland
Police Officer Thomas Russell Portz, Jr.
Baltimore City Police Department
EOW: Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Cause: Automobile accident
Baltimore City Police Department, Maryland
Police Officer James Earl Fowler, III
Baltimore City Police Department
EOW: Monday, September 27, 2010
Cause: Automobile accident
Baltimore City Police Department, Maryland
Detective Troy Lamont Chesley, Sr.
Baltimore City Police Department
EOW: Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Cause: Gunfire
Baltimore City Police Department, Maryland
Police Officer Anthony A. Byrd
Baltimore City Police Department
EOW: Friday, May 19, 2006
Cause: Automobile accident
Baltimore City Police Department, Maryland
Police Officer Brian Donte Winder
Baltimore City Police Department
EOW: Saturday, July 3, 2004
Cause: Gunfire
Seven in 10 years. Mostly auto accidents. Oneaccidental negligent discharge. Exactly two. And that's the eight largest police force in the nation.
posted by phearlez at 12:23 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
No, it's really not and it's less risky all the time. Being a civilian - particularly a black one - is the risky bit.
Oh, and Baltimore? Here's the last 10 years:
Baltimore City Police Department, Maryland
Police Officer Forrest Edward "Dino" Taylor
Baltimore City Police Department
EOW: Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Cause: Automobile accident
Baltimore City Police Department, Maryland
Police Officer William Henry Torbit, Jr.
Baltimore City Police Department
EOW: Sunday, January 9, 2011
Cause: Gunfire (Accidental)
Baltimore City Police Department, Maryland
Police Officer Thomas Russell Portz, Jr.
Baltimore City Police Department
EOW: Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Cause: Automobile accident
Baltimore City Police Department, Maryland
Police Officer James Earl Fowler, III
Baltimore City Police Department
EOW: Monday, September 27, 2010
Cause: Automobile accident
Baltimore City Police Department, Maryland
Detective Troy Lamont Chesley, Sr.
Baltimore City Police Department
EOW: Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Cause: Gunfire
Baltimore City Police Department, Maryland
Police Officer Anthony A. Byrd
Baltimore City Police Department
EOW: Friday, May 19, 2006
Cause: Automobile accident
Baltimore City Police Department, Maryland
Police Officer Brian Donte Winder
Baltimore City Police Department
EOW: Saturday, July 3, 2004
Cause: Gunfire
Seven in 10 years. Mostly auto accidents. One
posted by phearlez at 12:23 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
Whoops - I assumed that accidental in the notation above for Officer Torbit was referencing an unintentional weapons discharge but that is not correct, he was shot by another officer who did not realize he was a police officer. In the most recent article on the matter I found Torbit's family was still unsatisfied with the investigation.
I leave it up to the reader to determine how this colors your perspective on how dangerous it is to be a cop any why.
posted by phearlez at 12:33 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
I leave it up to the reader to determine how this colors your perspective on how dangerous it is to be a cop any why.
posted by phearlez at 12:33 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
Seven in 10 years. Mostly auto accidents.
And how many of those were blamed on the people they hit ? I gotta believe he's not the first one to think this up.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 12:35 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
And how many of those were blamed on the people they hit ? I gotta believe he's not the first one to think this up.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 12:35 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
I don't know how common this is, but the court sees no problem in having a bunch of idiots enforcing the law, and not just not a problem but that it's even ok to discriminate in favor of the idiots.
I tried becoming a police officer and in one of the departments that I got to the physical testing phase, that was the reason I heard the officer give for passing over me.
It's been nine years since I looked for a police job, but many departments (For example, Atlanta) would disqualify you if you've ever tried drugs. Ever.
posted by drezdn at 12:40 PM on December 2, 2014
I tried becoming a police officer and in one of the departments that I got to the physical testing phase, that was the reason I heard the officer give for passing over me.
It's been nine years since I looked for a police job, but many departments (For example, Atlanta) would disqualify you if you've ever tried drugs. Ever.
posted by drezdn at 12:40 PM on December 2, 2014
Just because somebody was killed in an auto accident doesn't diminish the danger of what they went through. Car chases are not exactly the safest thing. This list also doesn't include injuries. Being a black citizen is more dangerous, but it's mostly from drug related violence. If there were numbers from BLS for being in the drug trade, it would be one of the most dangerous occupations out there.
posted by destro at 12:41 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by destro at 12:41 PM on December 2, 2014
Cops kill more people in car chases than they die in. For god's sake, LEOs in Utah are killing more people than civilians are killing people.
posted by rtha at 12:56 PM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by rtha at 12:56 PM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
Of the 111 officers who died on duty in 2013, 33 were firearms related.
32 were from medical issues, including 14 heart attacks.
They didn't seem to have any statistics on how many cops were bludgeoned to death by drug crazed giant unarmed teenagers.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 12:56 PM on December 2, 2014 [13 favorites]
32 were from medical issues, including 14 heart attacks.
They didn't seem to have any statistics on how many cops were bludgeoned to death by drug crazed giant unarmed teenagers.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 12:56 PM on December 2, 2014 [13 favorites]
Just because somebody was killed in an auto accident doesn't diminish the danger of what they went through. Car chases are not exactly the safest thing.
Officer Taylor went through a red light (with his lights & siren on, according to the police spokesperson) and was struck. The other driver was not charged.
At least half of what makes policing dangerous seems to be police.
posted by phearlez at 1:00 PM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
Officer Taylor went through a red light (with his lights & siren on, according to the police spokesperson) and was struck. The other driver was not charged.
Description: Police Officer Portz was killed in an automobile crash when his patrol car struck the back of a stopped fire truck on a highway. The fire truck had stopped in response to a call for assistance.Parked vehicles are not the safest thing either, I guess?
Officer James Earl Fowler, III of the Baltimore Police Department died on September 27 in an automobile accident while on his way to a training course at Penn State University. The veteran officer, a member of the force for 34 years, encountered inclement weather on the drive, which caused his car to leave the road and strike the center divider.The passive voice applies to cars leaving roads and not just guns discharging I see.
Byrd, the officer in charge of Friday's midnight shift, was on his way back to the station as another officer, Raymond E. Cook Jr., 36, was leaving to back up a colleague handling a domestic dispute call.Of seven deaths in the region you consider high risk, one of the three who died by gunfire was slain by fellow officers (and blamed for the outcome by his department after he himself had fired eight times during a crowd control issue). Of the remaining four one was unquestionably negligent and the other three arguably so.
Their patrol cars collided about 2:40 a.m. near Stafford Street and Parksley Avenue and then slammed into a utility pole.
At least half of what makes policing dangerous seems to be police.
posted by phearlez at 1:00 PM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
And don't ever forget, that, as many detailed statistics we have on damn near everything else, Nobody Knows How Many Americans The Police Kill Each Year. How can we call that anything EXCEPT a systematic cover-up?
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:01 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:01 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
So, police should not chase criminals? Or are you saying the police are incompetent and kill themselves?
Cops make mistakes and some are criminals themselves, but this demonization of their career as if anybody who is a cop is obviously evil/stupid seems strange.
posted by destro at 1:13 PM on December 2, 2014
Cops make mistakes and some are criminals themselves, but this demonization of their career as if anybody who is a cop is obviously evil/stupid seems strange.
posted by destro at 1:13 PM on December 2, 2014
Well, actually, no - police should almost never chase criminals. It's harmful for no real payoff in almost all cases, and departments typically have restrictions on when high speed chases can happen (though they often fail to sanction violations).
But I brought up the specifics in those cases because you are determined to sell fantasy about how dangerous policing actually is. It's not dangerous, and it's not dangerous in a region you specifically called out. In the few cases where it was dangerous in the last decade it was dangerous because of the cops' own actions.
It is not demonization of the career to dispute when someone tries to angel-ize the career. You can keep moving the goalposts all you want but you're not going to find somewhere that makes your assertions true.
posted by phearlez at 1:21 PM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
But I brought up the specifics in those cases because you are determined to sell fantasy about how dangerous policing actually is. It's not dangerous, and it's not dangerous in a region you specifically called out. In the few cases where it was dangerous in the last decade it was dangerous because of the cops' own actions.
It is not demonization of the career to dispute when someone tries to angel-ize the career. You can keep moving the goalposts all you want but you're not going to find somewhere that makes your assertions true.
posted by phearlez at 1:21 PM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
So, police should not chase criminals?
Alternatives to traditional car chases was discussed in the Ferguson thread. The option isn't "not chase criminals," it's how to pursue them in ways that best serve the safety of all involved.
posted by audi alteram partem at 1:24 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
Alternatives to traditional car chases was discussed in the Ferguson thread. The option isn't "not chase criminals," it's how to pursue them in ways that best serve the safety of all involved.
posted by audi alteram partem at 1:24 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
So, police should not chase criminals?
Pretty much, yeah, and a lot of urban police departments agree and many have very tight policies on pursuits. Car chases in heavily trafficked areas pose huge risk to innocent bystanders and the chasing cop cars, and not so much to the alleged criminals being chased.
posted by rtha at 1:32 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Pretty much, yeah, and a lot of urban police departments agree and many have very tight policies on pursuits. Car chases in heavily trafficked areas pose huge risk to innocent bystanders and the chasing cop cars, and not so much to the alleged criminals being chased.
posted by rtha at 1:32 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yeah, being a cop is legitimately high risk, but only in the sense that other driving-heavy jobs are. It's high risk like driving a delivery truck is high risk, and for the same reasons.
But the stereotypical risk, that of intentional homicide, is quite low. The last time I played with the numbers -- and it was just playing, not actual analysis -- cops were at only marginally higher risk of being murdered than the general public.
Just because somebody was killed in an auto accident doesn't diminish the danger of what they went through. Car chases are not exactly the safest thing.
You probably shouldn't connect a officer dying in an MVA to a chase. I would bet you a fancy meal that the overwhelming majority of officer deaths in MVAs were either run of the mill wrecks or being hit while stopped for police business.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:37 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
But the stereotypical risk, that of intentional homicide, is quite low. The last time I played with the numbers -- and it was just playing, not actual analysis -- cops were at only marginally higher risk of being murdered than the general public.
Just because somebody was killed in an auto accident doesn't diminish the danger of what they went through. Car chases are not exactly the safest thing.
You probably shouldn't connect a officer dying in an MVA to a chase. I would bet you a fancy meal that the overwhelming majority of officer deaths in MVAs were either run of the mill wrecks or being hit while stopped for police business.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:37 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
re: the danger of police work
Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with the Bureau of Labor Statistics' data to quickly find and parse their data, but, this is stuff that can be looked at with statistics.
From some googling and finding various news outlets reporting on BLS data, the deadliest jobs in the USA are loggers, fishing, pilots, roofers, steelworkers, trashworkers, electrical work, agricultural work, and construction. Cops don't rank in the top ten.
I'd like to find simpler injury rates and a larger list but can't off the cuff.
In public health this is what we call a difference between actual risk and perceived risk.
Both are important, but we need to be careful with how we discuss them - you can't talk about perceived risk as if it's actual risk.
posted by entropone at 1:39 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with the Bureau of Labor Statistics' data to quickly find and parse their data, but, this is stuff that can be looked at with statistics.
From some googling and finding various news outlets reporting on BLS data, the deadliest jobs in the USA are loggers, fishing, pilots, roofers, steelworkers, trashworkers, electrical work, agricultural work, and construction. Cops don't rank in the top ten.
I'd like to find simpler injury rates and a larger list but can't off the cuff.
In public health this is what we call a difference between actual risk and perceived risk.
Both are important, but we need to be careful with how we discuss them - you can't talk about perceived risk as if it's actual risk.
posted by entropone at 1:39 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Cop kills a napster executive while texting and driving, not charged because the text was work-related.
I'm sure that defense would fly for a napster executive that ran over a cop.
posted by empath at 1:41 PM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
I'm sure that defense would fly for a napster executive that ran over a cop.
posted by empath at 1:41 PM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
This BI article based on BLS data says it's ranked #9. Apologies for the autoplaying sound.
posted by destro at 1:42 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by destro at 1:42 PM on December 2, 2014
Yeah, being a cop is legitimately high risk, but only in the sense that other driving-heavy jobs are. It's high risk like driving a delivery truck is high risk, and for the same reasons.
They also drive less; they spend so much time parked by comparison. Truckers are five times more likely to die than cops, based on what I worked out in the old Ferguson thread from stats.
posted by phearlez at 1:45 PM on December 2, 2014
They also drive less; they spend so much time parked by comparison. Truckers are five times more likely to die than cops, based on what I worked out in the old Ferguson thread from stats.
posted by phearlez at 1:45 PM on December 2, 2014
Wouldn't there be 5x as many deaths in trucking then? And truckers don't make the list of top ten dangerous professions
The Napster story is horrendously tragic, although this Daily News story has more details. It's quite possible there just wasn't enough evidence to convict.
posted by destro at 1:48 PM on December 2, 2014
The Napster story is horrendously tragic, although this Daily News story has more details. It's quite possible there just wasn't enough evidence to convict.
posted by destro at 1:48 PM on December 2, 2014
Some of the issues raised remind me of officer Colicchio and Detectives Polk and Mahon.
posted by juiceCake at 1:50 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by juiceCake at 1:50 PM on December 2, 2014
It's quite possible there just wasn't enough evidence to convict.
There never is.
posted by el io at 1:52 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
There never is.
posted by el io at 1:52 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
I showed my work, feel free to check it in that comment. I don't know why my numbers are different than BI's
posted by phearlez at 1:52 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by phearlez at 1:52 PM on December 2, 2014
Wouldn't there be 5x as many deaths in trucking then? And truckers don't make the list of top ten dangerous professions
They're #8 on your list.
posted by empath at 1:53 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
They're #8 on your list.
posted by empath at 1:53 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure destro reads his lists, empath, given that he's speculating about maybe there wasn't enough evidence to convict when the Daily News story he links has a link to a scribd copy of the DA's report saying exactly why they didn't prosecute.
posted by phearlez at 1:57 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 1:57 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
The Napster story is horrendously tragic, although this Daily News story has more details. It's quite possible there just wasn't enough evidence to convict.
Coming back to the original thrust of this thread, even if we can't convict this guy of a crime, why can't we at least get him off the police force?
posted by king walnut at 2:20 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Coming back to the original thrust of this thread, even if we can't convict this guy of a crime, why can't we at least get him off the police force?
posted by king walnut at 2:20 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Apologies I did miss that truckers are on the list. Truckers work horrendous hours for little pay and no longer have much in the way of union representation. No wonder that it's such a risky occupation.
posted by destro at 2:23 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by destro at 2:23 PM on December 2, 2014
Police unions halt militarization reform
posted by homunculus at 2:50 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 2:50 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
why can't we at least get him off the police force?
Practically speaking, unions turn an employer-employee relationship into something much more like a criminal court, where the harshest possible punishment is termination. Almost every termination will be grieved and go to arbitration, and that takes months and months of time. And if the case isn't super strong, they might plead down to a lesser punishment -- which won't be termination.
posted by smackfu at 3:00 PM on December 2, 2014
Practically speaking, unions turn an employer-employee relationship into something much more like a criminal court, where the harshest possible punishment is termination. Almost every termination will be grieved and go to arbitration, and that takes months and months of time. And if the case isn't super strong, they might plead down to a lesser punishment -- which won't be termination.
posted by smackfu at 3:00 PM on December 2, 2014
(Disclaimer: my girlfriend works for a non-police union and represents people in arbitrations, so I'm familiar with the process, although we often disagree on the cases.)
posted by smackfu at 3:01 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by smackfu at 3:01 PM on December 2, 2014
Cop kills a napster executive while texting and driving, not charged because the text was work-related.
I can't tell the difference between reality and bad satire anymore.
posted by homunculus at 4:08 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
I can't tell the difference between reality and bad satire anymore.
posted by homunculus at 4:08 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Funny how teachers' unions are The Problem yet you never ever ever (this article notwithstanding) hear any similar complaints about police unions. Bad teachers are chucked out on their ass while bad cops are given a pat on the back.
Not haha funny, but funny.
posted by zardoz at 5:36 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Not haha funny, but funny.
posted by zardoz at 5:36 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Oh, plenty of bad teachers out there. I mean, they don't get away with murder, but they get away with being piss poor at their jobs.
posted by el io at 6:04 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by el io at 6:04 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Funny how teachers' unions are The Problem yet you never ever ever (this article notwithstanding) hear any similar complaints about police unions. Bad teachers are chucked out on their ass while bad cops are given a pat on the back.
Again, I'd recommend reading this Jacobin piece. It points out that while police unions might be superficially structured like more traditional unions, they are fundamentally different beasts because of how they are formed.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:08 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Again, I'd recommend reading this Jacobin piece. It points out that while police unions might be superficially structured like more traditional unions, they are fundamentally different beasts because of how they are formed.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:08 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Seems to me police unions are conservative because cops tend to be conservative, and a union's job is to represent its membership.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:27 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 6:27 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
If you haven't read the Jacobin piece NoxAeternum just linked to, I implore you to do so. It warrants its own FPP.
posted by el io at 6:48 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by el io at 6:48 PM on December 2, 2014
In our town, Spokane, WA, police officers make an average of $111,000 including benefits, which comes out to 87% more than the average household income here.
They're famous mostly for not showing up when they're needed. Over the last 25 years, I've called them three times: Once when I watched kids stealing gas out of vehicles in an alley, going car to car. I called 911 and they asked me if the kids were armed. I said I didn't know and they said they'd need to know if they were armed or not. So I offered to go ask them if they had any weapons because the police wanted to know before they came out, but they hung up on me. No police showed up.
Next time I was living in a place where my computer was on the second floor right by the window and I watched a drug deal go bad one night and a pretty nasty assault take place. I called 911. No one showed up - and I stayed up for 3 hours to see.
Third time I was driving home and saw a gang fight, I assume it was, happening in an intersection a block or so ahead - lots of kids, some with garbage-can lids, most with some sort of club or baseball bat or something - not sure what - running at each other and yelling, etc. I turned off and went around the long way to my house where I parked, then got out and walked to the corner, peeked around and verified that they were still fighting, and went in and called the police.
Then I went out the back way and stood behind some brush and watched as a car who hadn't had the sense to turn off in time tried to get through the intersection. The kids turned on the car and started beating on it and yelling and being as loud and scary as possible. The person driving finally got brave and shot through the intersection on a red light to get away. Police never showed up.
They did, however, show up when Otto Zehm, a mentally disabled man who worked as a janitor at night and went on his break each night to the corner quik-mart for a candy bar and soda, apparently triggered some unbearable urge to meanness in a couple of young women who called in that he was robbing the ATM there, which he most definitely was not. (Or at least that's the story - that there was a phone call). The police rushed the place, scared the living hell out of Otto, who turned around from the cooler with his plastic liter bottle of soda in his hand to see what was going on and the police started pounding him in the head with batons and threw him to the ground on his stomach, tasered him multiple times, pulled his hands behind him, handcuffed him and placed a knee in his back. Soon Otto told them he couldn't breathe. They stayed put - for more than 15 minutes!. They actually put a nonrebreather mask on him with NO OXYGEN - and Otto died. His last words were, "all I wanted was a candy bar," or, again, that's the story. But he did die, the cop, Karl Thompson, was indicted, tried and convicted and sentenced to four years, believe it or not, even though all the police who were there testified that Otto was using his soda bottle in a threatening manner, which justified the harsh treatment. At his sentencing hearing, the other police on the force here saluted him to show their support. Blech. So much for respect for the Spokane Police Dept. Thompson got a quick divorce, signed his $650,000 home over to his wife, set it up for alimony and his pension money to go to her - all so none of his money would go to Otto's family. Washington State spent a half million dollars on Thompson's defense. And this was years ago - and Otto was white. He was a good guy, no matter what color he was - many people knew him.
One thing the police departments are very good at doing they probably learned from Catholic priests - they transfer the baddies out. We just had one of our real winners bounced out of here but he went on to become chief of police in some small town in the Midwest. Meantime, we inherited a new chief here who came from Indianapolis - they were more than glad to get rid of him because he was the subject of an open investigation.
The moment our police stood up and saluted Thompson - well, the outrage remains. The police unions have done nothing but change the identity of police forces from a brotherhood to a gang.
posted by aryma at 12:21 AM on December 3, 2014 [14 favorites]
They're famous mostly for not showing up when they're needed. Over the last 25 years, I've called them three times: Once when I watched kids stealing gas out of vehicles in an alley, going car to car. I called 911 and they asked me if the kids were armed. I said I didn't know and they said they'd need to know if they were armed or not. So I offered to go ask them if they had any weapons because the police wanted to know before they came out, but they hung up on me. No police showed up.
Next time I was living in a place where my computer was on the second floor right by the window and I watched a drug deal go bad one night and a pretty nasty assault take place. I called 911. No one showed up - and I stayed up for 3 hours to see.
Third time I was driving home and saw a gang fight, I assume it was, happening in an intersection a block or so ahead - lots of kids, some with garbage-can lids, most with some sort of club or baseball bat or something - not sure what - running at each other and yelling, etc. I turned off and went around the long way to my house where I parked, then got out and walked to the corner, peeked around and verified that they were still fighting, and went in and called the police.
Then I went out the back way and stood behind some brush and watched as a car who hadn't had the sense to turn off in time tried to get through the intersection. The kids turned on the car and started beating on it and yelling and being as loud and scary as possible. The person driving finally got brave and shot through the intersection on a red light to get away. Police never showed up.
They did, however, show up when Otto Zehm, a mentally disabled man who worked as a janitor at night and went on his break each night to the corner quik-mart for a candy bar and soda, apparently triggered some unbearable urge to meanness in a couple of young women who called in that he was robbing the ATM there, which he most definitely was not. (Or at least that's the story - that there was a phone call). The police rushed the place, scared the living hell out of Otto, who turned around from the cooler with his plastic liter bottle of soda in his hand to see what was going on and the police started pounding him in the head with batons and threw him to the ground on his stomach, tasered him multiple times, pulled his hands behind him, handcuffed him and placed a knee in his back. Soon Otto told them he couldn't breathe. They stayed put - for more than 15 minutes!. They actually put a nonrebreather mask on him with NO OXYGEN - and Otto died. His last words were, "all I wanted was a candy bar," or, again, that's the story. But he did die, the cop, Karl Thompson, was indicted, tried and convicted and sentenced to four years, believe it or not, even though all the police who were there testified that Otto was using his soda bottle in a threatening manner, which justified the harsh treatment. At his sentencing hearing, the other police on the force here saluted him to show their support. Blech. So much for respect for the Spokane Police Dept. Thompson got a quick divorce, signed his $650,000 home over to his wife, set it up for alimony and his pension money to go to her - all so none of his money would go to Otto's family. Washington State spent a half million dollars on Thompson's defense. And this was years ago - and Otto was white. He was a good guy, no matter what color he was - many people knew him.
One thing the police departments are very good at doing they probably learned from Catholic priests - they transfer the baddies out. We just had one of our real winners bounced out of here but he went on to become chief of police in some small town in the Midwest. Meantime, we inherited a new chief here who came from Indianapolis - they were more than glad to get rid of him because he was the subject of an open investigation.
The moment our police stood up and saluted Thompson - well, the outrage remains. The police unions have done nothing but change the identity of police forces from a brotherhood to a gang.
posted by aryma at 12:21 AM on December 3, 2014 [14 favorites]
tonycpsu: a union's job is to represent its membership.
No, a union's job is to fight for the interests of working people.
To carve out a special status for one group because of their job classification or local union membership is the antithesis of solidarity.
Moreover, the union's responsibility to its members in disciplinary cases is not to fight for the self-interest of the individual member, but to ensure that all members receive due process.
One potential threat to the workers' movement is that the way that police unions function threatens to discredit a labor movement that is already fighting several defensive battles.
But the bigger threat to working people from police unions is that they are such faithful servants to the bosses.
The proper thing to do would be for the AFL-CIO to strip such unions of their affiliate status when they defend the use of violence to murder, kill or harm through negligence, restrain the exercise of civil rights, or otherwise oppress working-class people.
posted by univac at 12:31 AM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
No, a union's job is to fight for the interests of working people.
To carve out a special status for one group because of their job classification or local union membership is the antithesis of solidarity.
Moreover, the union's responsibility to its members in disciplinary cases is not to fight for the self-interest of the individual member, but to ensure that all members receive due process.
One potential threat to the workers' movement is that the way that police unions function threatens to discredit a labor movement that is already fighting several defensive battles.
But the bigger threat to working people from police unions is that they are such faithful servants to the bosses.
The proper thing to do would be for the AFL-CIO to strip such unions of their affiliate status when they defend the use of violence to murder, kill or harm through negligence, restrain the exercise of civil rights, or otherwise oppress working-class people.
posted by univac at 12:31 AM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
The proper thing to do would be for the AFL-CIO to strip such unions of their affiliate status
Does that even matter? These are relatively small local unions that are only working in a single city.
posted by smackfu at 5:58 AM on December 3, 2014
Does that even matter? These are relatively small local unions that are only working in a single city.
posted by smackfu at 5:58 AM on December 3, 2014
I'm sure the AFL-CIO bouncing the police unions would do wonders for police protection for striking workers. This is probably one of those 'better on the inside pissing out' things.
posted by empath at 6:55 AM on December 3, 2014
posted by empath at 6:55 AM on December 3, 2014
No, a union's job is to fight for the interests of working people.
Of the working people in that union, yes. Of all working people? No. Federations like AFL-CIO, AFSCME, etc. are special cases where the makeup of the unions is so broad as to asymptotically approach what you refer to as the "interests of working people", but ultimately, while unions should make accommodations for people working in other job professions/industries, their ultimate accountability is and must be to the people who make up their membership.
Solidarity only arises from shared interests, and can only be maintained as long as each union recognizes that, while they may not agree on everything, they're stronger together. You may take one for the team on issue X, but when it comes time to defend issue Y for you, the other unions in the federation will have your back.
The proper thing to do would be for the AFL-CIO to strip such unions of their affiliate status when they defend the use of violence to murder, kill or harm through negligence, restrain the exercise of civil rights, or otherwise oppress working-class people.
Yeah, I agree with this part, but it's not at all in tension with what I said. In this case, the police unions are acting in a way that goes contrary to what a majority of AFL-CIO's "members" would want, so AFL-CIO should tell them to adapt or get the fuck out of the federation.
I am quite liberal, and very pro-labor. I do not work in a profession with any union presence, but would gladly unionize if the opportunity presented itself. Still, I don't see labor unions at the micro level as having any kind of fixed ideology. I am not justifying the behavior of these police/prison guard unions, which I think is reprehensible, and should be curtailed through strict laws on what those unions can and cannot do. But this idea that union X should act in a certain way politically because they're a labor union is silly and frankly unsupportable.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:39 AM on December 3, 2014
Of the working people in that union, yes. Of all working people? No. Federations like AFL-CIO, AFSCME, etc. are special cases where the makeup of the unions is so broad as to asymptotically approach what you refer to as the "interests of working people", but ultimately, while unions should make accommodations for people working in other job professions/industries, their ultimate accountability is and must be to the people who make up their membership.
Solidarity only arises from shared interests, and can only be maintained as long as each union recognizes that, while they may not agree on everything, they're stronger together. You may take one for the team on issue X, but when it comes time to defend issue Y for you, the other unions in the federation will have your back.
The proper thing to do would be for the AFL-CIO to strip such unions of their affiliate status when they defend the use of violence to murder, kill or harm through negligence, restrain the exercise of civil rights, or otherwise oppress working-class people.
Yeah, I agree with this part, but it's not at all in tension with what I said. In this case, the police unions are acting in a way that goes contrary to what a majority of AFL-CIO's "members" would want, so AFL-CIO should tell them to adapt or get the fuck out of the federation.
I am quite liberal, and very pro-labor. I do not work in a profession with any union presence, but would gladly unionize if the opportunity presented itself. Still, I don't see labor unions at the micro level as having any kind of fixed ideology. I am not justifying the behavior of these police/prison guard unions, which I think is reprehensible, and should be curtailed through strict laws on what those unions can and cannot do. But this idea that union X should act in a certain way politically because they're a labor union is silly and frankly unsupportable.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:39 AM on December 3, 2014
Of the working people in that union, yes. Of all working people? No.
This kind of ignores 100 years of union history. Strikes really only work when there is a critical mass of union members and union supporters that support the strikes.
posted by empath at 7:49 AM on December 3, 2014
This kind of ignores 100 years of union history. Strikes really only work when there is a critical mass of union members and union supporters that support the strikes.
posted by empath at 7:49 AM on December 3, 2014
How is what I said in conflict with wider labor actions that get non-union support?
posted by tonycpsu at 7:53 AM on December 3, 2014
posted by tonycpsu at 7:53 AM on December 3, 2014
I mean, Erik Loomis of Lawyers, Guns, and Money, who's won several blogging awards for his series chronicling labor history, agrees with me.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:55 AM on December 3, 2014
posted by tonycpsu at 7:55 AM on December 3, 2014
Baby steps in NYC:
With a month still to go before the end of the year, the favorable crime numbers appeared to render a verdict on at least one question: Would a vast decline in the number of recorded stop-and-frisk encounters create an opening for violence to return? So far, Mr. de Blasio and Mr. Bratton said, the answer has been no.posted by tonycpsu at 9:01 AM on December 3, 2014
Mr. Bratton said that by the end of the year there would be fewer than 50,000 such stops, down from a high of over 685,000 in 2011. That sharp decline, like crime over all, began well before Mr. de Blasio took office and has continued.
all the police who were there testified that Otto was using his soda bottle in a threatening manner
He did not piss you off, he made you fear for your safety and your fellow officers. I'm guessing now but maybe, he was seen to pick up a bottle and menace officers Hulk and Carver...
posted by juiceCake at 9:32 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
He did not piss you off, he made you fear for your safety and your fellow officers. I'm guessing now but maybe, he was seen to pick up a bottle and menace officers Hulk and Carver...
posted by juiceCake at 9:32 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
He did not piss you off, he made you fear for your safety and your fellow officers. I'm guessing now but maybe, he was seen to pick up a bottle and menace officers Hulk and Carver...
The supreme irony of Roorda and the rest of the pants-wetters getting so upset about the Rams hands-up thing, to me, is that the supplicating hands-up display is the one the cops all clearly want in every encounter. It's the only thing they'll consistently consider non-threatening and which might keep you from getting shot. Shooting someone who moves into their car - even when they've just been asked to get something in their car - gets called justified because of fear.
I guess it's unsurprising that cowards not only want you to keep them from ever being scared but also resent being reminded how easily they get scared.
posted by phearlez at 10:35 AM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
The supreme irony of Roorda and the rest of the pants-wetters getting so upset about the Rams hands-up thing, to me, is that the supplicating hands-up display is the one the cops all clearly want in every encounter. It's the only thing they'll consistently consider non-threatening and which might keep you from getting shot. Shooting someone who moves into their car - even when they've just been asked to get something in their car - gets called justified because of fear.
I guess it's unsurprising that cowards not only want you to keep them from ever being scared but also resent being reminded how easily they get scared.
posted by phearlez at 10:35 AM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
The last time I went into the local army surplus store there was a shirt there that said "Police: We Protect Your Asses."
posted by drezdn at 12:07 PM on December 3, 2014
posted by drezdn at 12:07 PM on December 3, 2014
tonycpsu: a union's job is to represent its membership.
No, a union's job is to fight for the interests of working people.
Under NLRB law, every union has a duty to represent its members. Not to look out for other people.
Seriously, please look up the law first.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:31 PM on December 3, 2014
No, a union's job is to fight for the interests of working people.
Under NLRB law, every union has a duty to represent its members. Not to look out for other people.
Seriously, please look up the law first.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:31 PM on December 3, 2014
Jesus christ, Ironmouth, the law is not the last word for everything.
Union members and organizations have an ethical obligation to support labor movements in general, not just look out for their own narrow self-interests.
posted by empath at 1:38 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
Union members and organizations have an ethical obligation to support labor movements in general, not just look out for their own narrow self-interests.
posted by empath at 1:38 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
You don't have a legal obligation to hold doors open for old ladies, or rsvp to wedding invitations, but there are still such things as social obligations and ethical obligations.
Unions encourage their members to shop at union stores, hire union contractors, not break picket lines, support laws that improve labor conditions, even for people who don't belong to any union. The whole point of unionism and the labor movement is worker solidarity.
posted by empath at 1:42 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Unions encourage their members to shop at union stores, hire union contractors, not break picket lines, support laws that improve labor conditions, even for people who don't belong to any union. The whole point of unionism and the labor movement is worker solidarity.
posted by empath at 1:42 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Union members and organizations have an ethical obligation to support labor movements in general, not just look out for their own narrow self-interests.
I still think this is too strong a statement. Unions can make more of a difference by banding together, but at the individual union level, each union has to look out for what its members want, or those unions will lose their members, and those union leaders will lose their jobs to leaders that will better reflect the interests of the remaining members. You can't say on one hand that solidarity between different unions is "the whole point" but then ignore the fact that sometimes solidarity between unions works at cross purposes to the interests of the people within each of those unions.
It's a balancing act, and one that's oversimplified by blanket statements about ethical obligations. The very same solidarity / strength in numbers that works to make unions strong together can weaken the individual unions over time. Thus, each union must ultimately answer to its members, not advance a more general political cause.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:50 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
I still think this is too strong a statement. Unions can make more of a difference by banding together, but at the individual union level, each union has to look out for what its members want, or those unions will lose their members, and those union leaders will lose their jobs to leaders that will better reflect the interests of the remaining members. You can't say on one hand that solidarity between different unions is "the whole point" but then ignore the fact that sometimes solidarity between unions works at cross purposes to the interests of the people within each of those unions.
It's a balancing act, and one that's oversimplified by blanket statements about ethical obligations. The very same solidarity / strength in numbers that works to make unions strong together can weaken the individual unions over time. Thus, each union must ultimately answer to its members, not advance a more general political cause.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:50 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
The last time I went into the local army surplus store there was a shirt there that said "Police: We Protect Your Asses."
That screams out for a marker modification to change Your to Our Own. Too bad I'd be enriching the tools who print shirts like that to get the original.
posted by phearlez at 5:03 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
That screams out for a marker modification to change Your to Our Own. Too bad I'd be enriching the tools who print shirts like that to get the original.
posted by phearlez at 5:03 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
The Tally of People Killed By Police is Way Off, They Kill Many More People than We’re Told
Also : Surprised? Police Union Rejecting New Technology that Tracks Cops’ Driving
posted by jeffburdges at 4:34 AM on December 5, 2014
Also : Surprised? Police Union Rejecting New Technology that Tracks Cops’ Driving
posted by jeffburdges at 4:34 AM on December 5, 2014
Ya know, Why It’s Impossible to Indict a Cop says :
Police unions are powerful but they might not bee that rich, so nailing them for millions in damages could force all officers to pay damages in their dues. In some case, the union might controls the pension plan, meaning you can bleed police pensions as well. In either case, you might observe officers turn on their own who cause problems, which addresses the problem.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:43 AM on December 5, 2014
Far more useful are the DOJ Civil Rights Division’s root-and-branch interventions into violently dysfunctional police forces, triggered by “patterns and practices” of systematic rights violations rather than any one particular incident. For instance, the DOJ just launched a major effort to reorganize and reshape the police department of Albuquerque, reforming its trainings, protocols and appallingly trigger-happy habits. (The Albuquerque police have shot thirty-seven people in the past four years, twenty-three of them fatally.) This is a well-established tool of the federal government: other police departments under federal supervision include those of Seattle, New Orleans, Puerto Rico and, until recently, Los Angeles and Detroit; the feds also nearly took over wholesale the Oakland police department in 2012. But note that these federal interventions do not entail punishments, civil or criminal, of individual police officers.What about suing police unions for contributed to specific incidents through either “patterns and practices” or for defending specific bad cops?
Police unions are powerful but they might not bee that rich, so nailing them for millions in damages could force all officers to pay damages in their dues. In some case, the union might controls the pension plan, meaning you can bleed police pensions as well. In either case, you might observe officers turn on their own who cause problems, which addresses the problem.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:43 AM on December 5, 2014
The union is obligated to defend all members equally without discrimination. If they do not, the member can sue the union for unfair representation. Trying to sue them for following the law isn't going to work out very well.
posted by smackfu at 5:54 AM on December 5, 2014
posted by smackfu at 5:54 AM on December 5, 2014
Police unions are doing *many* things that contribute to the pattern of civil rights abuse, institutionalized racism, etc. It'd depend on the specifics of the cases, what sort of evidence you can obtain, etc. Just doing discovery to force them to turn over internal communications is already helpful.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:24 AM on December 5, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 7:24 AM on December 5, 2014
I'm not really, personally, ever going to be down with taking steps that would be harmful to labor as a whole. The right of people to associate for personal, political, and professional reasons is too important to me. Police unions may do harm when they use those mechanisms but the same is true of the KKK (or maybe in the modern age we should say Westboro Baptist) and the 1st Amendment.
I might feel differently if I thought there was no other way to accomplish the same thing, but I feel like a lot of the issue with police unions isn't the collective labor but the wide swath of society that will just shrug and give them anything. Doing something that's going to harm the other 95% of unions just to avoid dealing with them in another way doesn't strike me as right.
posted by phearlez at 7:29 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
I might feel differently if I thought there was no other way to accomplish the same thing, but I feel like a lot of the issue with police unions isn't the collective labor but the wide swath of society that will just shrug and give them anything. Doing something that's going to harm the other 95% of unions just to avoid dealing with them in another way doesn't strike me as right.
posted by phearlez at 7:29 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
Ain't necessarily that connected with organized labor elsewhere. If however you do exploit an existing anti-labor precedent to destroy a police union then you're ultimately hastening the fall of the social class that created said anti-labor precedent. I'm a-okay with that.
We're talking about suing the police union over systemic issues like racial discrimination, discovering from their internal emails that their leadership encourages racist practices, like profiling, and then using that information to extract damages.
All organizations should be held to higher standards than individuals because they can commit crimes individuals cannot really commit. Unions are not some magical class of organization that should be above the law.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:20 PM on December 5, 2014
We're talking about suing the police union over systemic issues like racial discrimination, discovering from their internal emails that their leadership encourages racist practices, like profiling, and then using that information to extract damages.
All organizations should be held to higher standards than individuals because they can commit crimes individuals cannot really commit. Unions are not some magical class of organization that should be above the law.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:20 PM on December 5, 2014
NYPD Union President Says Eric Garner Caused his Own Death
posted by jeffburdges at 4:36 PM on December 5, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 4:36 PM on December 5, 2014
NYC Protests Shut Down Macy’s and Apple Stores While Police Freak Out
posted by jeffburdges at 7:19 AM on December 6, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 7:19 AM on December 6, 2014
SWAT Shoot Out In Dave Chappelle’s Home Town Highlights the Problem With Police
posted by jeffburdges at 7:58 AM on December 6, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 7:58 AM on December 6, 2014
Dave Chappelle On How Police Treat African Americans
posted by jeffburdges at 9:09 AM on December 6, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 9:09 AM on December 6, 2014
Overall crapy piece here but this bit stood out :
"No, it’s not a race thing. It’s a Ray Kelly thing. That man singlehandedly ruined this department. When I came up as a rookie, you were assigned an older cop who had been around and knew what they were doing. We were taught that you catch more flies with honey. Basically, if you let the small things go — like the guy selling loosies or weed or whatever on the corner — then when the big shit happens, like homicide or burglary, those are the same guys who will tell you all about it. If they hate you, they won’t tell you shit."
posted by jeffburdges at 8:29 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
"No, it’s not a race thing. It’s a Ray Kelly thing. That man singlehandedly ruined this department. When I came up as a rookie, you were assigned an older cop who had been around and knew what they were doing. We were taught that you catch more flies with honey. Basically, if you let the small things go — like the guy selling loosies or weed or whatever on the corner — then when the big shit happens, like homicide or burglary, those are the same guys who will tell you all about it. If they hate you, they won’t tell you shit."
posted by jeffburdges at 8:29 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
CA Cop is Being Fired for NOT Using Violence to Resolve a Situation
posted by jeffburdges at 1:58 PM on December 8, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 1:58 PM on December 8, 2014
Police Chief Finally Charged In Murder of Unarmed Man Who Tried To Fight Traffic Ticket
posted by jeffburdges at 8:43 PM on December 8, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 8:43 PM on December 8, 2014
Cop Finally Fired After Disabling Body Camera When He Shot 19 Year Old Girl
posted by jeffburdges at 10:40 AM on December 9, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 10:40 AM on December 9, 2014
Police Tell Family To Remove Memorial For Unarmed Teen Shot By Cops
posted by jeffburdges at 9:59 PM on December 9, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 9:59 PM on December 9, 2014
What does that “thin blue line” tag/bumper sticker mean?
posted by jeffburdges at 4:49 PM on December 11, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 4:49 PM on December 11, 2014
Ohio Cops Investigated For Racist Text Messages, Joking About Lynching African Americans
posted by jeffburdges at 10:29 PM on December 11, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 10:29 PM on December 11, 2014
Acting on a Bogus Tip, Cops Raid Innocent Family, Execute Grandfather as He Lay Face Down
posted by jeffburdges at 9:33 AM on December 12, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 9:33 AM on December 12, 2014
Why Police Unions Are Lashing Out Against Cop Critics Like Never Before
American Police Unions: Why Mess With What Works?
posted by homunculus at 12:34 PM on December 17, 2014
American Police Unions: Why Mess With What Works?
posted by homunculus at 12:34 PM on December 17, 2014
Perth Amboy cops planted knife on mentally ill man they killed
posted by jeffburdges at 2:20 AM on December 18, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 2:20 AM on December 18, 2014
« Older Behind the music | "I fast-forward through the cockroach episode... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by phearlez at 9:37 AM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]