Watching the watchmen: a best-practices guide
February 17, 2019 4:05 PM Subscribe
Police union leaders called the move unfair to officers, saying they are often subject to false complaints.Somebody get Alanis Morissette on the line.
posted by Etrigan at 4:25 PM on February 17, 2019 [16 favorites]
“You don’t need to have a ‘Brady no call’ list if the police department is terminating people,”It really is as simple as this. It's a job that involves giving so much power to an individual that you really must have utmost trust in them, when they've been proven willing to lie it has to be time for a new career. The unions should be defending their members when they're accused of this - but once it's proven I don't see how they can stomach continuing to defend them.
posted by ElliotH at 4:32 PM on February 17, 2019 [42 favorites]
Lying on the stand is perjury. It's a felony. Penalties vary at the state level but at the federal level it carries a five-year sentence. Nevermind being fired, officers who commit perjury are supposed to be imprisoned. No-one is above the law, right?
If you can't run your police department without employing known perjurers, fuck you. Talk to me when nobody on your team has committed a felony on the job.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 4:37 PM on February 17, 2019 [78 favorites]
If you can't run your police department without employing known perjurers, fuck you. Talk to me when nobody on your team has committed a felony on the job.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 4:37 PM on February 17, 2019 [78 favorites]
Yeah...this seems like fighting fire with ice cream. There's obviously a better way, and it will only work in so far as it draws attention to the larger issue by being farcical. Actually this analogy might be like fighting fire with ice cream, too.
posted by es_de_bah at 4:44 PM on February 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by es_de_bah at 4:44 PM on February 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
Abolish police unions.
posted by tclark at 4:44 PM on February 17, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by tclark at 4:44 PM on February 17, 2019 [6 favorites]
Abolish police unions.
People say that, but I can't get on board with this. Is there an argument for abolishing police unions other than "they do more harm than good?" Because people say that about all kinds of unions, and if we were to abolish police unions on that basis it seems like it would open the door to abolishing unions in general, which many powerful people would love to do.
Police officers have the right to organize just like any other labor group, as far as I'm concerned. If unions are a vehicle for keeping bad cops on the force (and they are) then they need to be reformed, but police have a right to collective bargaining and representation just like anybody else. Or do you have a different argument?
What they don't have a right to do is commit crimes and get away with it.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 4:57 PM on February 17, 2019 [26 favorites]
People say that, but I can't get on board with this. Is there an argument for abolishing police unions other than "they do more harm than good?" Because people say that about all kinds of unions, and if we were to abolish police unions on that basis it seems like it would open the door to abolishing unions in general, which many powerful people would love to do.
Police officers have the right to organize just like any other labor group, as far as I'm concerned. If unions are a vehicle for keeping bad cops on the force (and they are) then they need to be reformed, but police have a right to collective bargaining and representation just like anybody else. Or do you have a different argument?
What they don't have a right to do is commit crimes and get away with it.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 4:57 PM on February 17, 2019 [26 favorites]
Or do you have a different argument?
I think the argument usually goes that there's either reform or abolition, and reform doesn't work so therefore abolition is necessary.
The fact that this is a false dichotomy often goes unremarked. If reform is not an option, and abolition is unjust, there's always subversion, for instance.
posted by Merus at 5:25 PM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
I think the argument usually goes that there's either reform or abolition, and reform doesn't work so therefore abolition is necessary.
The fact that this is a false dichotomy often goes unremarked. If reform is not an option, and abolition is unjust, there's always subversion, for instance.
posted by Merus at 5:25 PM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
What they don't have a right to do is commit crimes and get away with it.
the problem is that frequently, the raison d'etre for police unions is to allow police officers to commit crimes and get away with it
posted by murphy slaw at 5:28 PM on February 17, 2019 [11 favorites]
the problem is that frequently, the raison d'etre for police unions is to allow police officers to commit crimes and get away with it
posted by murphy slaw at 5:28 PM on February 17, 2019 [11 favorites]
A cop Union is different because they have the legal power to murder people.
posted by The Whelk at 5:32 PM on February 17, 2019 [14 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 5:32 PM on February 17, 2019 [14 favorites]
OK, but how would we abolish police unions in such a way that our political opponents would not be able to turn right around and abolish, say, teachers' unions on the same basis? Teachers' unions are also frequently accused of shielding bad teachers and ensuring that they get to keep their jobs, yet I think you'd have a hard time finding someone in this room who'd want to see them done away with.
I get the anger, believe me. I just don't see this particular tactic as a good one. The arguments I'm seeing are still basically, "They do more harm than good." Being authorized by the state to use lethal force is a different line of reasoning to be sure, but I'm not sure I follow it. I don't see why that is ipso facto disqualifying.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:52 PM on February 17, 2019 [11 favorites]
I get the anger, believe me. I just don't see this particular tactic as a good one. The arguments I'm seeing are still basically, "They do more harm than good." Being authorized by the state to use lethal force is a different line of reasoning to be sure, but I'm not sure I follow it. I don't see why that is ipso facto disqualifying.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:52 PM on February 17, 2019 [11 favorites]
Abolish police unions.
FTFY. Also no thorny organization rights issues anymore. Two birds, a lone stone.
posted by axiom at 5:55 PM on February 17, 2019 [9 favorites]
FTFY. Also no thorny organization rights issues anymore. Two birds, a lone stone.
posted by axiom at 5:55 PM on February 17, 2019 [9 favorites]
OK, but how would we abolish police unions in such a way that our political opponents would not be able to turn right around and abolish, say, teachers' unions on the same basis?
oh thank god the slippery slope has been successfully averted everything will remain just exactly as terrible as it currently is hurrah for the brave forces of the okaybut
posted by Etrigan at 5:55 PM on February 17, 2019 [11 favorites]
oh thank god the slippery slope has been successfully averted everything will remain just exactly as terrible as it currently is hurrah for the brave forces of the okaybut
posted by Etrigan at 5:55 PM on February 17, 2019 [11 favorites]
Second Anticipation… here: the problem is that police unions are corrupt. The solution is removing the corruption, not joining the better part of a century’s propaganda war against workers’ rights. It doesn’t matter whether you’re acting in good faith because there are a lot of people who will definitely attack unionization 24x7 but curiously never have time to deal with the corruption and violence.
posted by adamsc at 6:02 PM on February 17, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by adamsc at 6:02 PM on February 17, 2019 [6 favorites]
In Philadelphia, a Progressive D.A. Tests the Power — and Learns the Limits — of His Office
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:05 PM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:05 PM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, in other news: Houston Officer Lied to Get Search Warrant for Raid that Led to Two Deaths (in which a Houston police detective "invented" information about an informant in a search warrant affidavit, directly leading to a raid in which four officers were shot and two occupants of the home were killed.)
Concerning the OP -- nth-ing the sentiment that opposition from present police union leadership ought to be disregarded at best or possibly even considered a point in favor of the policy.
posted by Nerd of the North at 6:18 PM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
Concerning the OP -- nth-ing the sentiment that opposition from present police union leadership ought to be disregarded at best or possibly even considered a point in favor of the policy.
posted by Nerd of the North at 6:18 PM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
Everyone in St Louis except white cops HATES Jeff Roorda. He's been an openly racist asshat for years. Lyda Krewson (Francis Slay's 5th term) has made mouth noises about him, but she's fine with having had the POA endorsement for her mayoral campaign. Gardner is in the right, here. The STLMPD is a dumpster fire of civil rights violations and internal coverups with no oversight.
posted by fluttering hellfire at 6:49 PM on February 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by fluttering hellfire at 6:49 PM on February 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
One argument in unions is the ability to have input into the workplace conditions. The workplace of the police inherently includes people who aren't able to join the union and don't have the ability to "take their business elsewhere", so to speak.
Imagine the perverse workplace if line managers on a factory floor had a strong union but people actually on the assembly line were prohibited from forming one at all--especially if you then put managers under extreme pressure to deliver results. Risk and other burdens would be transferred to the workers.
The fairness argument inherent behind control of the working conditions gets reversed in these conditions, when the setup takes voices away from people harmed in the workplace. Lobbying for pensions, etc., still seem fine to me.
posted by mark k at 7:05 PM on February 17, 2019 [12 favorites]
Imagine the perverse workplace if line managers on a factory floor had a strong union but people actually on the assembly line were prohibited from forming one at all--especially if you then put managers under extreme pressure to deliver results. Risk and other burdens would be transferred to the workers.
The fairness argument inherent behind control of the working conditions gets reversed in these conditions, when the setup takes voices away from people harmed in the workplace. Lobbying for pensions, etc., still seem fine to me.
posted by mark k at 7:05 PM on February 17, 2019 [12 favorites]
Years ago I read a piece by an ex-prosecutor--I think it was Scott Turow but can't find it to confirm--about the perverse incentives towards police dishonesty (often driven by courts and prosecutors.)
One part of the complaint was there is apparently a rule that police need to pretend they remember everything when testifying; notebooks can be used to "refresh" their memory but aren't direct evidence. So when you hit trial a year later a cop has to say "Oh, I remember now that is was six in the evening and no one else was home" or whatever, and "good" (as in effective) cops learn to lie like this quite convincingly and appear far more credible than the civilians who have very little practice.
Of course once people normalize this and get good at it you can't limit it to "little" things required by the rules of evidence if you have cops who don't stop there. A big chunk of the piece as I recall was frustration with trying to prosecute corrupt officers who just appeared so convincing to the jury.
posted by mark k at 7:28 PM on February 17, 2019 [11 favorites]
One part of the complaint was there is apparently a rule that police need to pretend they remember everything when testifying; notebooks can be used to "refresh" their memory but aren't direct evidence. So when you hit trial a year later a cop has to say "Oh, I remember now that is was six in the evening and no one else was home" or whatever, and "good" (as in effective) cops learn to lie like this quite convincingly and appear far more credible than the civilians who have very little practice.
Of course once people normalize this and get good at it you can't limit it to "little" things required by the rules of evidence if you have cops who don't stop there. A big chunk of the piece as I recall was frustration with trying to prosecute corrupt officers who just appeared so convincing to the jury.
posted by mark k at 7:28 PM on February 17, 2019 [11 favorites]
What mark k said. Structurally speaking, one of the main or at least significant roles of police (as a general job category) is to maintain societal power structures that keep most other workers disempowered and exploited - and, specifically, keeping Black people disempowered and subjugated (see various recent books on the development of modern policing post-slavery and -colonialism, as well as the overwhelming number of accounts of racist violence and racial profiling by police departments all over). When, as seems to generally be the case, police unions see their role as indemnifying individual police officers for their more specific actions in subjugating other working class folks and entrenching those power structures, police unions are anti-working class, despite technically being labor unions. The argument against reform of police unions being sufficient is this structural analysis: police unions protect violent officers because violence against Black and working class folks is, structurally, an inherent component of the job, and the role of any union is to improve protections for workers against the hazards of doing their job, which in this case means protection from prosecution for carrying out the implied job description beyond the explicit or legal job description.
posted by eviemath at 7:31 PM on February 17, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 7:31 PM on February 17, 2019 [12 favorites]
[The piece I referred to two posts ago is available in this PDF. It is indeed the Scott Turow one (p.57) ]]
posted by mark k at 7:37 PM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by mark k at 7:37 PM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
The concept that the issue with policing in the US is that they are unionized is some crazy-ass doublethink acceptance of some Reagan nonsense or something, I have no clue where the policy basis for that lies. Ya'll must have some better drugs than me if you think that any move from the left to weaken the position of any public worker's right to collective bargaining is going to make policing better, let alone not be a crippling blow to the concept of unions. Police unions on the whole are fucking terrible. The police as organized and directed are fucking terrible. Abolish Police and Abolish Prison are catchy slogans, but are just a different way to say 'reform' unless you are totally insane and think that police are why all crime happens.
You can have not terrible, or at least much less terrible police and prisons, it's not like the US is the only place on earth that crime happens. Europe exists, you can look at lots of countries there. This isn't some mysterious issue that has to be solved with chainsaws.
But at the end of the day, I'm going to laugh in your face if you honestly think that having fewer rights and protections in their job is going to lead to less brutality and dishonesty and outright murder instead of more. Sure thing, lets make sure the group of people organized as armed thugs is more overworked and less well paid and has worse health coverage and has no other outlet to put that anger, but lets make sure that the racist elected officials who are the foundation of that machine stay in power. Could hardly make a better fucking quiet genocide machine if you tried.
Destroy the corruption, and put more control in citizens hands. It's not inherent to the idea of civil policing that it is a tool of prejudice and oppression, we're just so damn used to it here. Break that assumption.
posted by neonrev at 7:59 PM on February 17, 2019 [12 favorites]
You can have not terrible, or at least much less terrible police and prisons, it's not like the US is the only place on earth that crime happens. Europe exists, you can look at lots of countries there. This isn't some mysterious issue that has to be solved with chainsaws.
But at the end of the day, I'm going to laugh in your face if you honestly think that having fewer rights and protections in their job is going to lead to less brutality and dishonesty and outright murder instead of more. Sure thing, lets make sure the group of people organized as armed thugs is more overworked and less well paid and has worse health coverage and has no other outlet to put that anger, but lets make sure that the racist elected officials who are the foundation of that machine stay in power. Could hardly make a better fucking quiet genocide machine if you tried.
Destroy the corruption, and put more control in citizens hands. It's not inherent to the idea of civil policing that it is a tool of prejudice and oppression, we're just so damn used to it here. Break that assumption.
posted by neonrev at 7:59 PM on February 17, 2019 [12 favorites]
An attack on the ability of any group to unionize really is an attack on the ability of everyone to unionize. This isn't a slippery slope argument, it's a core concept that's been at the heart of the labor movement for well over a century.
The problem with police unions isn't that they exist. It's that they exist within a context in which police are simultaneously lionized for their supposed valor and honesty, while also subject to the same capitalist forces placing them at risk of exploitation as the rest of us. The latter makes them necessary, the former makes it too easy for them to extract concessions unrelated to their actual function of protecting workers from unfair treatment by their employers.
I know a few cops, and they tell stories about other cops they work with who they think are terrible officers who should be fired. They're not happy with the fact that they have to work with them, but at the same time I think they've been indoctrinated into the idea that any external criticism of any cop, even the worst ones, is actually a criticism of all of them, and so they're prone to closing ranks despite their misgivings. The culture of policing and the police unions is to blame for this. Changing the culture means changing the leadership, and the leadership of the police unions is part of what needs to change.
I think the solution the DAs here are using, which focuses on blacklisting individual problem police, is a good one, a sort of "natural consequences" for the police departments' and unions' failure to do the right thing. Clearly a "one-and-done" policy for perjury, or even non-perjury job-related lying, is the right solution, but when that's not the police department's policy, refusing to take cases from those individuals that have been caught at it both directly avoids the legal risks of charging a case with an officer who's an unreliable witness as well as putting pressure on the departments to clean themselves up by whatever strategy they choose. After all, there's only so many drug busts that go unprosecuted because Officer Mike was involved and he once lied on the stand, before the other members of the department start demanding that Officer Mike be reassigned or fired. No police officer should have a right to have his cases tried, that is a fundamental violation of separation of powers, and the fact that some unions are arguing for that is a disgrace to their own profession.
posted by biogeo at 8:04 PM on February 17, 2019 [9 favorites]
The Paradox of “Progressive Prosecution”, Harvard Law Review
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:33 PM on February 17, 2019
Mosby’s unapologetic prosecution of the officers in Gray’s case places her in the recently emerging league of “progressive prosecutors.” But her zeal obscures her complicity. This Note interrupts the celebration of unusually progressive prosecutors to emphasize the risks associated with relying on prosecutors in the movement to reform the U.S. criminal legal system. It argues that these reforms are “reformist reforms” that fail to deliver on the transformative demands of a fundamentally rotten system. Part I gives an overview of progressive prosecution tactics. These tactics are deployed in a criminal legal system that is fundamentally rotten, as explained in Part II. Part III outlines the inability of the progressive prosecution movement to redistribute power through ushering in transformative reforms. Part IV provides guiding principles for future efforts in reform.The Tattooed Star of the ‘Progressive Prosecutor’ Movement Braces for His First Death Penalty Trial
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:33 PM on February 17, 2019
You know when we say abolish prisons and abolish police we don’t mean we press a button and they vanish overnight, right? Cause that would be a stupid, bad faith reading of the argument, right?
It’s a large scale societal project to make prisons and police unnecessary by attacking root causes. For one thing, the majority of calls local police are called out for are bullshit nuisance calls or should really be a social service call. They tried to have more community integration of the cops in my neighborhood to inform people what they should and should not call the police for and it actually led to an increase in “should not” calls. Some people have it in their head that calling the police is like calling their parents, except they have guns and can kill people and get away with it.
posted by The Whelk at 8:46 PM on February 17, 2019 [17 favorites]
It’s a large scale societal project to make prisons and police unnecessary by attacking root causes. For one thing, the majority of calls local police are called out for are bullshit nuisance calls or should really be a social service call. They tried to have more community integration of the cops in my neighborhood to inform people what they should and should not call the police for and it actually led to an increase in “should not” calls. Some people have it in their head that calling the police is like calling their parents, except they have guns and can kill people and get away with it.
posted by The Whelk at 8:46 PM on February 17, 2019 [17 favorites]
Reading things like this always makes me wish I could psychically impart an impression of the gulf of understanding in between the lay reader of an article like this and someone like me. This article has a huge glaring hole which I am honestly surprised seems to have not occurred to either the original author or any commenter here. Namely: what's going on in the counties where this isn't a thing?
For example in my county any cop would have been fired long before getting a Brady letter would even be a consideration. Getting caught in a documented lie is just an automatic career ender here and the prosecutor's office would let admin know about any such lies they uncovered long before a Brady letter happened. At least one recruit gets fired out of almost every academy class for some stupid lie when telling the truth might have been some extra pushups at worst. I can think of at least two cops who have been fired in the past five years for lying about minor policy violations, and at least one of those was told repeatedly by the union to tell the truth when IA interviewed him. The union didn't lift a finger to help him after he lied.
So why is that the case in my county - and trust me, my police union is very healthy - but in Baltimore the prosecutor is apparently putting dozens of cops on her list and the agency is just trying to shuffle them into closets? How transparent is that prosecutor about what puts you on the list? Can she actually document anything, or is she using it to hurt cops she just doesn't like? If you arrest a judge for DWI are you going to magically end up on the Brady list without any ability to ask what for? Or is it somehow the case that Baltimore PD just lets you keep your job if you're literally caught perjuring yourself? If so how the hell did that happen and why isn't the solution "fix the policy"? Why didn't the article author ask any of these questions?
The post is titled here on mefi "cops who have lied on the stand" but I see no indication in the article that that's actually the bar we're looking at here. The article in fact doesn't rigorously interrogate what the bar is at all, which is part of the problem. Of course the cops are going to resist any system whereby someone can just unilaterally destroy their career without the cop having any recourse and without the responsible party ever having to even make an allegation, let alone support one. If you get caught lying on the stand, obviously you should lose your career in law enforcement. It is emphatically not clear that that's what we're actually talking about here.
And FWIW white collar crime proves (to me) that no amount of addressing root causes will eliminate criminal behavior. People born with all the privileges in the world and who want for nothing will still want more, or want it easier, for feel like it's their due. We could definitely do some root causes things to reduce street crime but I can promise you that you'll have people living in clean public housing eating free public groceries who will still be out there robbing people at gunpoint, domestic violence will continue apace, etc.
posted by firebrick at 9:33 PM on February 17, 2019 [4 favorites]
For example in my county any cop would have been fired long before getting a Brady letter would even be a consideration. Getting caught in a documented lie is just an automatic career ender here and the prosecutor's office would let admin know about any such lies they uncovered long before a Brady letter happened. At least one recruit gets fired out of almost every academy class for some stupid lie when telling the truth might have been some extra pushups at worst. I can think of at least two cops who have been fired in the past five years for lying about minor policy violations, and at least one of those was told repeatedly by the union to tell the truth when IA interviewed him. The union didn't lift a finger to help him after he lied.
So why is that the case in my county - and trust me, my police union is very healthy - but in Baltimore the prosecutor is apparently putting dozens of cops on her list and the agency is just trying to shuffle them into closets? How transparent is that prosecutor about what puts you on the list? Can she actually document anything, or is she using it to hurt cops she just doesn't like? If you arrest a judge for DWI are you going to magically end up on the Brady list without any ability to ask what for? Or is it somehow the case that Baltimore PD just lets you keep your job if you're literally caught perjuring yourself? If so how the hell did that happen and why isn't the solution "fix the policy"? Why didn't the article author ask any of these questions?
The post is titled here on mefi "cops who have lied on the stand" but I see no indication in the article that that's actually the bar we're looking at here. The article in fact doesn't rigorously interrogate what the bar is at all, which is part of the problem. Of course the cops are going to resist any system whereby someone can just unilaterally destroy their career without the cop having any recourse and without the responsible party ever having to even make an allegation, let alone support one. If you get caught lying on the stand, obviously you should lose your career in law enforcement. It is emphatically not clear that that's what we're actually talking about here.
Cause that would be a stupid, bad faith reading of the argument, right?I mean look, I'm an advocate for always responding to the best version of someone's argument. But I think it's very likely the case that there are people in this very thread who would absolutely push the magic "abolish police" button right this second if they had access to it.
And FWIW white collar crime proves (to me) that no amount of addressing root causes will eliminate criminal behavior. People born with all the privileges in the world and who want for nothing will still want more, or want it easier, for feel like it's their due. We could definitely do some root causes things to reduce street crime but I can promise you that you'll have people living in clean public housing eating free public groceries who will still be out there robbing people at gunpoint, domestic violence will continue apace, etc.
posted by firebrick at 9:33 PM on February 17, 2019 [4 favorites]
I’ve always argued the target of increased enforcement of laws should be at white collar crime, since they don’t have an excuse, and the elimination of broken windows policing and treating the police as an arm of the psychiatric or social service. After all, wage theft is the leading cause of theft three times over property or personal theft in this country.
But the people who investigate wage theft and tax frauds aren’t the people regularly getting away with murder, on camera, in full view of witnesses.
posted by The Whelk at 9:41 PM on February 17, 2019 [9 favorites]
But the people who investigate wage theft and tax frauds aren’t the people regularly getting away with murder, on camera, in full view of witnesses.
posted by The Whelk at 9:41 PM on February 17, 2019 [9 favorites]
If you get caught lying on the stand, obviously you should lose your career in law enforcement. It is emphatically not clear that that's what we're actually talking about here.
"Testilying" By Police: A Stubborn Problem
"Testilying" By Police: A Stubborn Problem
“I misspoke when I was in grand jury,” Sean Kinane, an officer with the 52nd Precinct in the Bronx, testified in federal court in 2016. That was all the explanation he gave, or was asked to give, for why he was recanting his earlier testimony about witnessing what appeared to be narcotics transactions in the moments before he stopped a heroin dealer in the street.posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:17 PM on February 17, 2019 [4 favorites]
That claim, if true, would have given the police justification to stop the man, who was discovered to be carrying 153 glassine envelopes of heroin and eight bags of crack cocaine. But after the drug dealer managed to get a video recording of the encounter, Officer Kinane’s story changed. He had misspoken.
Reached by telephone for comment, Detective Kinane — he was promoted in 2017 — hung up.
A Baltimore police officer was caught giving false testimony in court. He's still on the job.
Cops rarely punished when judges find testimony false, questionable, Chicago Tribune
Cops rarely punished when judges find testimony false, questionable, Chicago Tribune
He became a judge in 2008 after spending 17 years in his own small law firm, and he quickly began to set himself apart. In some cases, he does more than just call out the officers. After he quashed the seizure of the cocaine in the Rodriguez and Garcia case, Hooks told Vojta, the prosecutor, that he wanted the case brought to the attention of Vojta's supervisor, as well as to officials at the Police Department. He was concerned, he said, whether Vojta knew how Martinez was going to testify.posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:46 PM on February 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
Indeed, Hooks said he wanted prosecutors to explain why Martinez would not be charged criminally for his testimony.
"I assume (police officers) will be as truthful as any other person who testifies, and I want to know what the State's Attorney's office is going to do about this situation," Hooks told Vojta, according to a transcript. "... You didn't have a case against these defendants. You had a case against that police officer."
A month later, a supervisor, Assistant State's Attorney Brian Sexton, came to court and told Hooks the office was looking into the matter.
Four months later, Martinez remains on the street, though prosecutors told the Tribune they were reviewing his testimony
Of course the cops are going to resist any system whereby someone can just unilaterally destroy their career without the cop having any recourse and without the responsible party ever having to even make an allegation, let alone support one.
Counterpoint: Police can unilaterally kill someone without the cop's victim having any recourse and without the responsible party ever having to answer any allegations, let alone be subject to the full extent of the law.
posted by mikelieman at 2:52 AM on February 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
Counterpoint: Police can unilaterally kill someone without the cop's victim having any recourse and without the responsible party ever having to answer any allegations, let alone be subject to the full extent of the law.
posted by mikelieman at 2:52 AM on February 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
Ever notice how “public safety” unions are often exempted from anti-organized-labor measures? Ever notice them getting all up in arms about it on behalf of their fellow travelers in the labor movement?
Police unions are to unions what “reverse racism” is to racism: a co-opting of the name and some of the trappings by the enemy.
posted by Etrigan at 3:43 AM on February 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
Police unions are to unions what “reverse racism” is to racism: a co-opting of the name and some of the trappings by the enemy.
posted by Etrigan at 3:43 AM on February 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
A part of this discussion seems to me to hinge on why we believe we have and need unions.
Like, my understanding is not that they're there because of a human right to collective bargaining or the like.
I think of unions as being organs of working class power, developed as both a path to and an alternative to revolution.
Cops are class traitors, therefore we have no obligation to support their organisation. Police unions are not organs of working class power, they're a confederation which supports and defends state violence in the name of maintaining the status quo.
Focusing too much on a legal right to organise collectively regardless of any class character leads to justification of retailers associations and the like, as far as I can tell. It's ceding that the main determinant of right and wrong is the state and their legal definitions.
A union should pay attention to the law only so far as is necessary to achieve their aims. They should view themselves as essentially existing in opposition to the government, because they exist to support the working class, and the state to support the ruling class.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 3:45 AM on February 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
Like, my understanding is not that they're there because of a human right to collective bargaining or the like.
I think of unions as being organs of working class power, developed as both a path to and an alternative to revolution.
Cops are class traitors, therefore we have no obligation to support their organisation. Police unions are not organs of working class power, they're a confederation which supports and defends state violence in the name of maintaining the status quo.
Focusing too much on a legal right to organise collectively regardless of any class character leads to justification of retailers associations and the like, as far as I can tell. It's ceding that the main determinant of right and wrong is the state and their legal definitions.
A union should pay attention to the law only so far as is necessary to achieve their aims. They should view themselves as essentially existing in opposition to the government, because they exist to support the working class, and the state to support the ruling class.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 3:45 AM on February 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
In their current militarized state, police should not be unionized for the same reason the infantry is not unionized. The same goes for corrections officers, come to think of it.
If the state empowers you to use force, to suspend or abrogate the rights of fellow citizens in the name of "public safety," and to be yourself exempt from certain regulations (traffic lights, etc.) under emergency conditions that (in the moment) you and yours decide on, then it should be very, very easy for you to lose your job and you should have to do that job under a microscope.
As Orson Welles once wrote in a script (and Chuck Heston delivered it!), "A police [officer's] job is only easy in a police state."
posted by kewb at 4:20 AM on February 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
If the state empowers you to use force, to suspend or abrogate the rights of fellow citizens in the name of "public safety," and to be yourself exempt from certain regulations (traffic lights, etc.) under emergency conditions that (in the moment) you and yours decide on, then it should be very, very easy for you to lose your job and you should have to do that job under a microscope.
As Orson Welles once wrote in a script (and Chuck Heston delivered it!), "A police [officer's] job is only easy in a police state."
posted by kewb at 4:20 AM on February 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
The Whelk: You know when we say abolish prisons and abolish police we don’t mean we press a button and they vanish overnight, right? Cause that would be a stupid, bad faith reading of the argument, right?
Oh please. Don't say shit that you don't mean, defend it when challenged, and then call me a "stupid, bad-faith" reader for challenging you on it. Words mean things. I'm not a mind-reader, to know that when you say "abolish police unions" you don't actually mean "abolish police unions," especially when a bunch of folks step up to defend exactly that position after it's questioned.
Don't call me stupid for not reading your mind. Don't call me bad-faith for taking your words at face value. I know you're better than that.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:14 AM on February 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
Oh please. Don't say shit that you don't mean, defend it when challenged, and then call me a "stupid, bad-faith" reader for challenging you on it. Words mean things. I'm not a mind-reader, to know that when you say "abolish police unions" you don't actually mean "abolish police unions," especially when a bunch of folks step up to defend exactly that position after it's questioned.
Don't call me stupid for not reading your mind. Don't call me bad-faith for taking your words at face value. I know you're better than that.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:14 AM on February 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
The unions aren't the problem. No, seriously, they aren't. Reason: unions are only as powerful as the people in charge of the workplace are willing to let them be.
Unions don't run the business. They're not in charge of the police department; the city management is. City managers have traditionally had support-to-outright-pressure from the citizens to be "tough on crime" and "support the police". Result: of all public employee unions, the ones representing the guys with the guns are on the best terms with management, and thus get the best deals for themselves.
The reality is, if there were no police unions, this indulgent relationship would continue - except this time it would be management that is openly supporting the dirty/crooked cops and their leadership. Right now, the unions provide the convenient buffer.
Also: unions are bound by the Duty of Fair Representation. That's the result of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says unions are legally obligated to provide a fair and full representation of their members in cases of discipline and grievances. If the union does not provide it, they can be sued by the member who did not receive their support. When you read of a union continuing to support an employee who has been credibly accused of terrible things, this is why they're doing so.
In the long run, it's up to the citizens to support candidates who take a tough stand on holding police accountable, and that includes negotiating tougher disciplinary clauses in the union contracts. Right now, dirty cops win arbitration and legal appeals a lot, because the contract that the city management agreed to makes it very difficult to get rid of bad cops without a great deal of time and effort. Obviously the union is going to push for the best contract for themselves. It's up to the city management to push back on behalf of the citizens, instead of weakly rolling over every time the contract is up for renewal.
posted by Lunaloon at 5:53 AM on February 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Unions don't run the business. They're not in charge of the police department; the city management is. City managers have traditionally had support-to-outright-pressure from the citizens to be "tough on crime" and "support the police". Result: of all public employee unions, the ones representing the guys with the guns are on the best terms with management, and thus get the best deals for themselves.
The reality is, if there were no police unions, this indulgent relationship would continue - except this time it would be management that is openly supporting the dirty/crooked cops and their leadership. Right now, the unions provide the convenient buffer.
Also: unions are bound by the Duty of Fair Representation. That's the result of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says unions are legally obligated to provide a fair and full representation of their members in cases of discipline and grievances. If the union does not provide it, they can be sued by the member who did not receive their support. When you read of a union continuing to support an employee who has been credibly accused of terrible things, this is why they're doing so.
In the long run, it's up to the citizens to support candidates who take a tough stand on holding police accountable, and that includes negotiating tougher disciplinary clauses in the union contracts. Right now, dirty cops win arbitration and legal appeals a lot, because the contract that the city management agreed to makes it very difficult to get rid of bad cops without a great deal of time and effort. Obviously the union is going to push for the best contract for themselves. It's up to the city management to push back on behalf of the citizens, instead of weakly rolling over every time the contract is up for renewal.
posted by Lunaloon at 5:53 AM on February 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Man it's just amazing how much bullshit about what a union is and what they are for we've all swallowed that 'can't get fired' is what people think they are.
Ya'll, there is so, so much more to collective bargaining than 'can't get fired'. That's not even inherent to the concept. My GF is in a union, and one effect of that is that it's actually easier to fire her if she fucks certain things up, not harder, because a well run union is self-policing of bad behavior, not protective of it. A well run union with goals and incentives in line with managing labor in a way that is beneficial to the people and the worker doesn't want shitty asshole workers. Police unions don't have to be shelters for brutality, they could be bulwarks against it.
I'm not kidding, somewhere dark and evil thatcher and reagan are cackling at how much of their lies they've managed to get liberals to repeat. Unions do not exist for lazy people who don't want to do good work, and they can and are run responsibly all across the world, even police unions.
posted by neonrev at 6:08 AM on February 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
Ya'll, there is so, so much more to collective bargaining than 'can't get fired'. That's not even inherent to the concept. My GF is in a union, and one effect of that is that it's actually easier to fire her if she fucks certain things up, not harder, because a well run union is self-policing of bad behavior, not protective of it. A well run union with goals and incentives in line with managing labor in a way that is beneficial to the people and the worker doesn't want shitty asshole workers. Police unions don't have to be shelters for brutality, they could be bulwarks against it.
I'm not kidding, somewhere dark and evil thatcher and reagan are cackling at how much of their lies they've managed to get liberals to repeat. Unions do not exist for lazy people who don't want to do good work, and they can and are run responsibly all across the world, even police unions.
posted by neonrev at 6:08 AM on February 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
You know when we say abolish prisons and abolish police we don’t mean we press a button and they vanish overnight, right? Cause that would be a stupid, bad faith reading of the argument, right?
Dude. This is not how you educate allies about a good but confusingly named concept.
posted by zennie at 6:29 AM on February 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
Dude. This is not how you educate allies about a good but confusingly named concept.
posted by zennie at 6:29 AM on February 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
There Was a Blue Wave in District Attorney Races Too
Really looks like y'all want to have a different conversation than the one about DAs.
Maybe someone who wants that conversation will make a space for it.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:40 AM on February 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Really looks like y'all want to have a different conversation than the one about DAs.
Maybe someone who wants that conversation will make a space for it.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:40 AM on February 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Words mean things. I'm not a mind-reader, to know that when you say "abolish police unions" you don't actually mean "abolish police unions," especially when a bunch of folks step up to defend exactly that position after it's questioned.
For real. This is a bad and real problem that does actually have solutions we can apply, and intentionally muddying the waters rhetorically because perhaps you dislike the history of the phrases 'prison reform' or 'police reform' is such a bullshit move. A slow and steady movement towards eliminating the prime causes of crime as a society through social programs, poverty reduction and education combined with retraining and redeployment of police towards community policing while strictly eliminating problem officers and a complete retooling of how we approach prison and reform that looks to examine and address the reasons people end up in jail and work to combat and repair those damages, all of this hopefully being done in as intersectional a way possible, this is what I understand people to mean when they say those things. If so, we're talking about reform folks, so probably call it what it is. Subversion of the meaning of words is their tool, not ours. We aren't trying to trick each other here right? We're all wanting the same thing I'm real dang sure.
Really looks like y'all want to have a different conversation than the one about DAs.
The DAs mentioned seem cool, and I enjoy their actions and ideas. I could get some pull-quotes and react to them, but I'm willing to assume we all read the article. Don't have any notes about the writing, so not much to say there. Other than that, it's the same conversation? We're talking systemic problems with policing, the things that reinforce those problems and the ways in which we as citizens can vote and think about this problem in a way that is productive?
posted by neonrev at 6:56 AM on February 18, 2019
For real. This is a bad and real problem that does actually have solutions we can apply, and intentionally muddying the waters rhetorically because perhaps you dislike the history of the phrases 'prison reform' or 'police reform' is such a bullshit move. A slow and steady movement towards eliminating the prime causes of crime as a society through social programs, poverty reduction and education combined with retraining and redeployment of police towards community policing while strictly eliminating problem officers and a complete retooling of how we approach prison and reform that looks to examine and address the reasons people end up in jail and work to combat and repair those damages, all of this hopefully being done in as intersectional a way possible, this is what I understand people to mean when they say those things. If so, we're talking about reform folks, so probably call it what it is. Subversion of the meaning of words is their tool, not ours. We aren't trying to trick each other here right? We're all wanting the same thing I'm real dang sure.
Really looks like y'all want to have a different conversation than the one about DAs.
The DAs mentioned seem cool, and I enjoy their actions and ideas. I could get some pull-quotes and react to them, but I'm willing to assume we all read the article. Don't have any notes about the writing, so not much to say there. Other than that, it's the same conversation? We're talking systemic problems with policing, the things that reinforce those problems and the ways in which we as citizens can vote and think about this problem in a way that is productive?
posted by neonrev at 6:56 AM on February 18, 2019
We're all wanting the same thing I'm real dang sure.
When you start off by calling people who disagree with you "insane," a "stupid, bad-faith" insult, it is not clear.
It is not clear at all.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:02 AM on February 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
When you start off by calling people who disagree with you "insane," a "stupid, bad-faith" insult, it is not clear.
It is not clear at all.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:02 AM on February 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Unless anyone here was actually advocating the complete elimination of every single police officer in the nation and the absence of any public safety control whatsoever, no, I don't disagree with anyone here. Unless you are arguing that the purge is a good way for a society to work, which yeah I will call insane. I understand what 'abolish the police' means, and that's why I feel like disagreeing with the framing of the issue. There's zero disagreement about the problem, I have no idea where you are getting that. Electing DA's like these is exactly what we're all talking about as a way to deal with this problem, right? This is the path to solving or mitigating this issue?
posted by neonrev at 7:16 AM on February 18, 2019
posted by neonrev at 7:16 AM on February 18, 2019
Cops are class traitors, therefore we have no obligation to support their organisation. Police unions are not organs of working class power, they're a confederation which supports and defends state violence in the name of maintaining the status quo.
See the thing is - if you think cops are class traitors, which, I think there’s a lot of analysis to suggest that they are as their job often involves enforcing upper class norms, and they spend more time protecting wealthier neighborhoods than poorer ones - then you don’t need to go to “and their little union, too!” Just stop at “cops are class traitors.”
The thing is - and I’m not going to pretend this isn’t a thing argued about, and there are many opinions - you literally cannot say “these people don’t have the right to organize” without it fucking over workers in other industries and being used as a tool against the working class too. Saying soldiers don’t have the right to unionize? That’s what lets bullshit wars kill huge segments of the working class, for example. And when you say “these people can’t unionize because they serve the public and the public doesn’t have the ability to choose not to be affected by them”, well that DOES apply to a lot more people than just cops.
And if you really want to be left-analysis about it, using the state to destroy other elements of the state has a lot of problematic implications for building class-based power, not least that it teaches members of the working class that the appropriate method for resolving their conflicts is to beg the politicians to solve them rather than building their own power.
posted by corb at 7:44 AM on February 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
See the thing is - if you think cops are class traitors, which, I think there’s a lot of analysis to suggest that they are as their job often involves enforcing upper class norms, and they spend more time protecting wealthier neighborhoods than poorer ones - then you don’t need to go to “and their little union, too!” Just stop at “cops are class traitors.”
The thing is - and I’m not going to pretend this isn’t a thing argued about, and there are many opinions - you literally cannot say “these people don’t have the right to organize” without it fucking over workers in other industries and being used as a tool against the working class too. Saying soldiers don’t have the right to unionize? That’s what lets bullshit wars kill huge segments of the working class, for example. And when you say “these people can’t unionize because they serve the public and the public doesn’t have the ability to choose not to be affected by them”, well that DOES apply to a lot more people than just cops.
And if you really want to be left-analysis about it, using the state to destroy other elements of the state has a lot of problematic implications for building class-based power, not least that it teaches members of the working class that the appropriate method for resolving their conflicts is to beg the politicians to solve them rather than building their own power.
posted by corb at 7:44 AM on February 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
The FPP article places a lot of blame on "police unions" writ large by not naming the specific ones it is talking about. The Baltimore police union is a chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, which has been loudly lobbying on the wrong side of everything since forever. The Tuscon police union is not a chapter of the FOP, but not for lack of trying by part of its membership.
posted by zennie at 8:08 AM on February 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by zennie at 8:08 AM on February 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
Just out of curiosity, where do you stalwart defenders of the police unions as the true barometer of collective bargaining get the idea that police unions won't cheerfully fuck over organized labor if they get the slightest chance?
posted by Etrigan at 8:24 AM on February 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 8:24 AM on February 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
- Corb
I think I agree? I don't think police unions should be outlawed or anything, that we should use the state to shut them down, I just don't see why people want to go to bat for them. Let them stand on their own, and have no share of our solidarity.
Also, the military is way too big a topic to get into here, but I would agree that while they are widely considered class traitors, that's not a 1-for-1 as with cops, there's different factors in effect there.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 8:25 AM on February 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
I think I agree? I don't think police unions should be outlawed or anything, that we should use the state to shut them down, I just don't see why people want to go to bat for them. Let them stand on their own, and have no share of our solidarity.
Also, the military is way too big a topic to get into here, but I would agree that while they are widely considered class traitors, that's not a 1-for-1 as with cops, there's different factors in effect there.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 8:25 AM on February 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
Come on Etrigan, who are the stalwart defenders here?
Look, I'm not a fan of the police. I've always distrusted authority, especially authority that can fuck up your whole life on a whim. I've watched friends of mine get written up on blatantly false drug charges. I've had my car searched because I had a brown person riding shotgun. I've had police be sweet as pie to my upper-middle-class parents and then when they weren't looking turn right around and say some really venomously nasty shit to teenaged me. And I pay attention to the news.
I kicked off my participation here by pointing out that the DA's actions don't go far enough because police who commit perjury should be imprisoned, just like ordinary citizens.
But apparently I am your enemy, because I am insufficiently convinced by a three-word slogan the supporters of which right here in this thread don't even seem to consistently define in practice. I have been called a troll and an idiot because I think that strategically and philosohically it might not be the greatest idea to actually abolish police unions, rather than just substantially reforming them. Nobody has explained why "abolish" in this case doesn't actually mean "abolish," nor does there appear to be actual agreement around that fact (witness the people who stepped in to defend a literal interpretation of the slogan, some of whom then turned right around and called me a troll for taking it literally) but that doesn't matter. I am insufficiently pure (on this issue anyway, I'll catch you over in the next pro-labor thread where I'm pretty sure you'll still think I'm insufficiently pure because who the fuck can be pure enough for everybody all the time) and that's all that matters.
Purity tests suck. You're making enemies of your allies. If you can't allow people the freedom to question your views without attacking them personally, I hope you never get into a position of actual power. If you can only have this conversation with people who already agree with you 100%, why even have it? If your movement depends on everybody already agreeing with you on every point and nuance, your movement is fucking doomed.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:59 AM on February 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Look, I'm not a fan of the police. I've always distrusted authority, especially authority that can fuck up your whole life on a whim. I've watched friends of mine get written up on blatantly false drug charges. I've had my car searched because I had a brown person riding shotgun. I've had police be sweet as pie to my upper-middle-class parents and then when they weren't looking turn right around and say some really venomously nasty shit to teenaged me. And I pay attention to the news.
I kicked off my participation here by pointing out that the DA's actions don't go far enough because police who commit perjury should be imprisoned, just like ordinary citizens.
But apparently I am your enemy, because I am insufficiently convinced by a three-word slogan the supporters of which right here in this thread don't even seem to consistently define in practice. I have been called a troll and an idiot because I think that strategically and philosohically it might not be the greatest idea to actually abolish police unions, rather than just substantially reforming them. Nobody has explained why "abolish" in this case doesn't actually mean "abolish," nor does there appear to be actual agreement around that fact (witness the people who stepped in to defend a literal interpretation of the slogan, some of whom then turned right around and called me a troll for taking it literally) but that doesn't matter. I am insufficiently pure (on this issue anyway, I'll catch you over in the next pro-labor thread where I'm pretty sure you'll still think I'm insufficiently pure because who the fuck can be pure enough for everybody all the time) and that's all that matters.
Purity tests suck. You're making enemies of your allies. If you can't allow people the freedom to question your views without attacking them personally, I hope you never get into a position of actual power. If you can only have this conversation with people who already agree with you 100%, why even have it? If your movement depends on everybody already agreeing with you on every point and nuance, your movement is fucking doomed.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:59 AM on February 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
I don't think police unions should be outlawed or anything, that we should use the state to shut them down, I just don't see why people want to go to bat for them. Let them stand on their own, and have no share of our solidarity.
Yeah, that's probably my actual view. I just find people saying the 'the problem is the police union and not the police' really weird. Kind of like people saying 'Hah, gotcha, do you know the police bust unions!' Like, yeah, man, I'm aware. I don't know who this is news for but definitely not anyone I organize with.
posted by corb at 10:14 AM on February 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
Yeah, that's probably my actual view. I just find people saying the 'the problem is the police union and not the police' really weird. Kind of like people saying 'Hah, gotcha, do you know the police bust unions!' Like, yeah, man, I'm aware. I don't know who this is news for but definitely not anyone I organize with.
posted by corb at 10:14 AM on February 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
Come on Etrigan, who are the stalwart defenders here?
Those would be the people who say things like "if we were to abolish police unions on that basis it seems like it would open the door to abolishing unions in general" and "you literally cannot say 'these people don’t have the right to organize' without it fucking over workers in other industries and being used as a tool against the working class too." Because, as you may not have noticed, I didn't say "stalwart defenders of police unions and literally everything one has ever done". I said -- and I'll cut and paste here -- "stalwart defenders of the police unions as the true barometer of collective bargaining", because I believe that trying to use them as some kind of canary in the coal mine, or an example of how organized labor needs to stick together no matter what, is toxic, simplistic, and self-destructive.
But apparently I am your enemy
Hey, remember all that discussion of stupid bad-faith readings? Let's maybe examine this thing where you turn "Police unions are bad and not really good partners to other unions" into "Purity tests suck. You're making enemies of your allies." and spend a whole paragraph predicting what I'm going to do on some hypothetical future post. The only thing you missed was "So much for the tolerant left!"
posted by Etrigan at 11:11 AM on February 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
Those would be the people who say things like "if we were to abolish police unions on that basis it seems like it would open the door to abolishing unions in general" and "you literally cannot say 'these people don’t have the right to organize' without it fucking over workers in other industries and being used as a tool against the working class too." Because, as you may not have noticed, I didn't say "stalwart defenders of police unions and literally everything one has ever done". I said -- and I'll cut and paste here -- "stalwart defenders of the police unions as the true barometer of collective bargaining", because I believe that trying to use them as some kind of canary in the coal mine, or an example of how organized labor needs to stick together no matter what, is toxic, simplistic, and self-destructive.
But apparently I am your enemy
Hey, remember all that discussion of stupid bad-faith readings? Let's maybe examine this thing where you turn "Police unions are bad and not really good partners to other unions" into "Purity tests suck. You're making enemies of your allies." and spend a whole paragraph predicting what I'm going to do on some hypothetical future post. The only thing you missed was "So much for the tolerant left!"
posted by Etrigan at 11:11 AM on February 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
Look, if that's really what you took from my comments then either my writing skills or your reading comprehension, or both, are way off. I didn't defend police unions, I just questioned whether actually abolishing them rather than merely reforming them was the best idea. Both of those positions are anti-police-union, just one is slightly less intense than the other. I never even took the position that police unions definitely should not be abolished, I just questioned the wisdom of that position. I remain persuadable, if anybody was interested in persuading rather than just attacking people who are insufficiently pure.
"So much for the tolerant left?" I am the fucking left. Maybe I'm not as radical on every single point as the leftmost person on MetaFilter, but I support leftist policies, I make leftist arguments, I vote for leftist politicians, I push for leftist reforms in my workplace. If you want to reject everyone who is not more leftist than me (not to mention corb here, who I know for a fact is a fucking warrior for labor rights) then you are going to have precious few friends in the world.
A left that has no room for questioning or dissent or disagreement is just a dictatorship without the power. Merely espousing leftist policies does not make you good. There have been plenty of leftist regimes that were brutal and evil. Take them as a warning, not a fucking example.
You know what, I didn't come here to be called names just because on this particular issue I'm considering a position that's half a degree to the right of the most extreme position on offer. I'm going to go off and be toxic, simplistic, and self-destructive somewhere else for a while.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:28 AM on February 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
"So much for the tolerant left?" I am the fucking left. Maybe I'm not as radical on every single point as the leftmost person on MetaFilter, but I support leftist policies, I make leftist arguments, I vote for leftist politicians, I push for leftist reforms in my workplace. If you want to reject everyone who is not more leftist than me (not to mention corb here, who I know for a fact is a fucking warrior for labor rights) then you are going to have precious few friends in the world.
A left that has no room for questioning or dissent or disagreement is just a dictatorship without the power. Merely espousing leftist policies does not make you good. There have been plenty of leftist regimes that were brutal and evil. Take them as a warning, not a fucking example.
You know what, I didn't come here to be called names just because on this particular issue I'm considering a position that's half a degree to the right of the most extreme position on offer. I'm going to go off and be toxic, simplistic, and self-destructive somewhere else for a while.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:28 AM on February 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
Also: unions are bound by the Duty of Fair Representation. That's the result of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says unions are legally obligated to provide a fair and full representation of their members in cases of discipline and grievances. If the union does not provide it, they can be sued by the member who did not receive their support. When you read of a union continuing to support an employee who has been credibly accused of terrible things, this is why they're doing so.That means things like making sure they have a lawyer and insisting on due process. It does not mean the union needs to attack the prosecutor simply for doing their job: that’s the corruption talking.
I see this in DC unfortunately regularly with the teachers union where their spokesperson is permanently in attack mode so it’s always “administrators are railroading an innocent teacher” and then the union helps smear its members when it turns out that the teacher in question was indeed sleeping with a student, etc. It’d be far more effective and fair to the vast majority of members who aren’t committing crimes if the response was “we think everyone should have a fair and complete investigation” until there was a result.
posted by adamsc at 11:39 AM on February 18, 2019
Cops are bosses. They are not class traitors. They are not workers. They are not working class. They are not labor. Fuck their unions.
posted by stet at 12:06 PM on February 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by stet at 12:06 PM on February 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
Life isn't a binary. Some cops are class traitors, some aren't. Some cops are workers, some are lazy slobs, some are bosses. Some cops make very little money investigating child abuse and rape cases and live lives of quiet trauma. Some cops plant drugs to meet expectations, or because they are racist. Some cops are little more than fucking murderers with a badge. Some cops are just a fucking person who does data entry. Some are queer, some are nazis. You can't distill labor and life down to simple slogans if you care about getting things done more than looking as pure as possible. An organized society has a police force, that's been true forever. How we manage and direct them is the question.
We're eating ourselves here folks, and this isn't a real fight. Absolutely everyone here is on the same side. We want the same things. I'm watching people I really respect and look up to fighting each other over shit I know they agree on under the semantics. There's no reason at all for this to be personal. For my part I sure didn't intend it to be. I fucking hate the police same as the rest of us. Not trying to defend them more than just their shared humanity.
posted by neonrev at 1:05 PM on February 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
We're eating ourselves here folks, and this isn't a real fight. Absolutely everyone here is on the same side. We want the same things. I'm watching people I really respect and look up to fighting each other over shit I know they agree on under the semantics. There's no reason at all for this to be personal. For my part I sure didn't intend it to be. I fucking hate the police same as the rest of us. Not trying to defend them more than just their shared humanity.
posted by neonrev at 1:05 PM on February 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
Cops are bosses. They are not class traitors. They are not workers. They are not working class. They are not labor. Fuck their unions.
In other words, "How the fuck can the FUCKING STRIKEBREAKERS form a fucking union?"
posted by mikelieman at 1:49 PM on February 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
In other words, "How the fuck can the FUCKING STRIKEBREAKERS form a fucking union?"
posted by mikelieman at 1:49 PM on February 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
Houston Police Chief Says He’ll End No-Knock Warrants After Botched Raid
But the biggest bombshells came last Friday, when the Chronicle examined the violent records of the officers involved through a far more critical lens than it had done immediately after the raid, and reported that the informant cited in the warrant may not even exist. Citing internal police records, the Chronicle‘s Keri Blakinger and St. John Barned-Smith wrote that Goines “had been involved in multiple shootings, racked up a smattering of written reprimands, faced several lawsuits and is currently accused of fabricating a drug deal then lying about it in court to win a conviction against a man who has long maintained he’s innocent.”posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:15 AM on February 20, 2019 [4 favorites]
« Older An Honest Living | “Serious About Snacks” Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Apparently you are not “playing 911 roulette” when you call and get an officer who has lied on the stand or engaged in corruption....
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:15 PM on February 17, 2019 [19 favorites]