Fraternal Order of Police Threads, Local #3

[The Notorious]

Sounds great scot. Please keep us posted on your research.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

NYPD cops abuse and kill citizens, it's business as usual. A couple NYPD cops are killed by a mentally unhinged jackass and it's now a "wartime" organization.

My immediate reaction when I read this news was the same as drawk and Littlefinger: good. And then the empathetic human in me was like, "That's stupid, it's not good." There are cops in the NYPD who do deserve to face justice and never will, but no one deserves to be murdered, ever.

However, fuck the NYPD and their piece of shit corrupt union after this response. Fuck them and their cowardly, hateful, wannabe Storm Trooper asses.

How could these protestors not be blamed? At least a portion of them. I guess you missed the Sharpton protestors chanting "what do we want? Dead cops?". Then when they are murdered, you expect us to believe the " we don't condone this" bs? Or the " burn this bitch down", then when it happens it's "oh, of course he didn't mean it. It was the grief."?

I have no doubt that, while you're not dumb enough to express it, you and your ilk still believe it was "good". You are dumb enough, however, to fail to see that this will only make police more suspicious while on the beat. And it adds even more scrutiny to these frowned upon, divisive "protests".

I feel a lot of you have been hoping for this type of "justice". I think you'll quickly regret it if we continue down this path.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

So a suicidal guy who had just shot his ex girlfriend goes on a killing spree, and you're blaming it on protestors who bring light to a legitimate grievance?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

This was interesting. It is a White Paper about hiring practices for North Carolina Police "Agencies". It talks about the "Emotional Intellegence Quotant" being a big factor in retention policies.

http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/04047dee-0878-497f-9fe4-bf5e58367dd6/White-Paper-Final-Version-8-09.aspx

This is an article referred to in the White Paper from 2006:

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1052&issue_id=112006

[Wise Fool]

How could these protestors not be blamed? At least a portion of them.

Because that's not how personal responsibility works. You're familiar with this concept, personal responsibility? You should be, since you sing the right-libertarian rhetoric. Unless they were directly involved or complicit, they're not to blame.

I guess you missed the Sharpton protestors chanting "what do we want? Dead cops?". Then when they are murdered, you expect us to believe the " we don't condone this" bs? Or the " burn this bitch down", then when it happens it's "oh, of course he didn't mean it. It was the grief."?

I guess you missed that part in the Constitution allowing freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The First Amendment. You are familiar with the Constitution? You should be, since you sing the right-libertarian rhetoric.

I have no doubt that, while you're not dumb enough to express it, you and your ilk still believe it was "good". You are dumb enough, however, to fail to see that this will only make police more suspicious while on the beat. And it adds even more scrutiny to these frowned upon, divisive "protests".

This translates as "You haven't said anything about this being 'good,' but I'm going to go ahead and assume you thought it anyway and blame you for thinking what I think you think." Not sure what "your ilk" is in reference to, but it doesn't matter - you're only actually responding to something that's occurred only in your own head.

I feel a lot of you have been hoping for this type of "justice". I think you'll quickly regret it if we continue down this path.

Yeah you do, but try as I might, I can't bring myself to care about what you "feel." Possibly because you shit all over the ideals you claim to hold just so you can shit all over the thoughts you think people think. It's rather obnoxious - but, alas, so very typical of the once-dignified right.

[The Notorious]

This was interesting. It is a White Paper about hiring practices for North Carolina Police "Agencies". It talks about the "Emotional Intellegence Quotant" being a big factor in retention policies.

http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/04047dee-0878-497f-9fe4-bf5e58367dd6/White-Paper-Final-Version-8-09.aspx

This is an article referred to in the White Paper from 2006:

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1052&issue_id=112006

Seems like the preferred policy is to consider emotional iq as a positive factor in hiring and/or improving the law enforcement work force.

[Relic]

what the fuck are you talking about lev? My movement? I don't have a movement. I've been out of the states for 11 months, in Vietnam eating Pho for the last month. Becoming an EU citizen next year, so don't go pigeon holing me with your lame labels.

And yes, my point IS to dismantle the police union. I already stated 20 times why i think so. This isn't someone else's idea im buying into. It's purely my reaction to how police operate in the states. Also agree that the private sector needs more unions. It's like you lost your ability to read or something.

[The Notorious]

Your idea to dismantle police union is ..... insane.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Because that's not how personal responsibility works. You're familiar with this concept, personal responsibility? You should be, since you sing the right-libertarian rhetoric. Unless they were directly involved or complicit, they're not to blame.

So now you are a proponent of personal responsibility? How hypocritical of you. Don't recall you or many others spouting this in the case of Brown's actions... IMO, when you say "hey, kill some cops" and it happens you are complicit.

[Relic]

Your idea to dismantle police union is ..... insane.

Okay. Why? Give me a better solution.

[The Notorious]

Because everyone should be entitled to collective bargaining.

A better solution for what?

[Shryke]

I agree that it would be better if unions in general, and particularly police unions, were more willing to turn against their members who fuck-up or, more specific to police, abuse power. I also understand the frustration, even absolute outrage in lots of cases, when police unions circle wagons around cops who are clearly in the wrong

But this runs against the idea of unions in many ways. It's like complaining that even people who are guilty can get legal representation. Exactly like it in fact.

Which isn't to say that police unions don't have issues but it is very much their job to defend their members. That's part of the adversarial system. It's generally when they step beyond that duty that it becomes a problem.

[MerenthaClone]

Tptwp: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/20/sharpton-new-york-city-police-officers-killed/20706865/

Sharpton has been nothing but an advocate for peaceful protests and immediately denounced the killings. Saying "hey guys you're kinda out if control and maybe stop killing civilians and getting away with it" is not anything like "kill cops". DeBlasio's statements have likewise been utterly benign, but the police have taken anything other than unquestioning, unequivocal, unconditional support as " kill all pigs". And you've somehow bought that line.

E: the problem again isn't the union. In an adversarial system the union is doing exactly what it should. The problem is that the people hiring the police aren't firing them in the first place. There is no push back against the union. If prosecutors and public officials came out hard instead of softballing, the union would, again, be fine. There'd be balance. The union is doing its job just fine. The rest of the adversarial system isn't.

[brook]

So a suicidal guy who had just shot his ex girlfriend goes on a killing spree, and you're blaming it on protestors who bring light to a legitimate grievance?

I'm pretty sure the protestors are also somehow to blame for him shooting his ex.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

But this runs against the idea of unions in many ways. It's like complaining that even people who are guilty can get legal representation. Exactly like it in fact.

Which isn't to say that police unions don't have issues but it is very much their job to defend their members. That's part of the adversarial system. It's generally when they step beyond that duty that it becomes a problem.

This is a somewhat limited idea of unions. Unions have also advocated for greater control of the workplace more generally, often meant as inroads into more or less radical/socialist forms of industrial democracy. Part of this is advocating for the right to have a say in hiring and firing practices, or to demand that only union members can be hired (causing this practice to be banned in the US by Taft-Hartley). They can't make this demand without admitting the need to regulate and potentially dismiss workers. The important thing is that the union have a role in ensuring fairness and due process. If they internally decide a member has screwed up- which they will rightfully be far more guarded about than management for fear of precedent- this process has not been meaningfully compromised. The adversarial relationship should be over whether the union or management has greater say over the running of the work place, not necessarily over every specific issue which arises.

[Wise Fool]

So now you are a proponent of personal responsibility? How hypocritical of you. Don't recall you or many others spouting this in the case of Brown's actions... IMO, when you say "hey, kill some cops" and it happens you are complicit.

You have the right to peaceful protest. And you can say what you like. But inciting violence or riots is a crime, so there's that.

I've always been a proponent of personal responsibility. Or what, you think because you pretend to believe in it, everyone else is against it?

I don't recall you ever talking about personal responsibility in the case of Wilson's actions, now that you mention it. For you, it seems "scary black man made me do it" suffices. And now, you will similarly lay blame for one person's actions: "some protesters said to kill cops, and that made me do it." Indeed this lack of any sense of what personal responsibility is is a consistent pattern. Brown was never charged or found guilty, but you judge him guilty of cigar theft and sentence him to die; some random protestors have similarly not been charged of being complicit in a crime but you find them guilty. Personal responsibility? Just a high principle to serve as euphemism for your hypocrisy and petty emotionalism.

Actually, the post I quoted actually shows the poster admitting he thought that these murders were good initially.

And the post of yours I quoted accused him of still secretly believing it, as well as "all [his] ilk."

If you're going to try to read, try to do it right. And the ilk in this case is you hypocritical leftists. I don't have a problem spelling it out for you, if that's what it takes!

Oh, so now all leftists think what you think they think. Wow man, can you, like, bend spoons with your magic wielding mind as well?

Again, because of personal responsibility, one person can not admit to what others secretly think, on their behalf. And you can't "admit" to and on behalf of that one person secretly believing what other third parties secretly believe on their behalf.

Too confusing? Learn what both "person" and "responsibility" are, then try combining them. You'll have a fantastic time, plus you might grow a lot more mature in three years.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Tptwp: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/20/sharpton-new-york-city-police-officers-killed/20706865/

Sharpton has been nothing but an advocate for peaceful protests and immediately denounced the killings. Saying "hey guys you're kinda out if control and maybe stop killing civilians and getting away with it" is not anything like "kill cops". DeBlasio's statements have likewise been utterly benign, but the police have taken anything other than unquestioning, unequivocal, unconditional support as " kill all pigs". And you've somehow bought that line.

No line being bought. Once again, just the obvious truths you people deny on a daily basis. He was leading the march where they were chanting for dead cops. He's trying to distance himself from this now, after the fact. Sharpton is playing the role he always plays, divisive race baiter. Now two innocent Americans are dead because of it.

Benign? Don't be ridiculous! Your leaders have been stirring this pot for how long now? Their intentions couldn't be clearer. They've been trying to rekindle the civil rights glory days and ramp up racial tensions. My question is how good do you guys feel about it now? Now that two men that had nothing to do with either of these high profile cases have been murdered?

Now we have Ferguson protestors chanting "pigs in a blanket" referring to Ramos and Liu. That's the names of the victims, BTW. I've heard Michael Brown and Eric Garner countless times, but these guys are just NYC cops.

[Shryke]

This is a somewhat limited idea of unions. Unions have also advocated for greater control of the workplace more generally, often meant as inroads into more or less radical/socialist forms of industrial democracy. Part of this is advocating for the right to have a say in hiring and firing practices, or to demand that only union members can be hired (causing this practice to be banned in the US by Taft-Hartley). They can't make this demand without admitting the need to regulate and potentially dismiss workers. The important thing is that the union have a role in ensuring fairness and due process. If they internally decide a member has screwed up- which they will rightfully be far more guarded about than management for fear of precedent- this process has not been meaningfully compromised. The adversarial relationship should be over whether the union or management has greater say over the running of the work place, not necessarily over every specific issue which arises.

Yes, it should. Because one of the main services of a union is when management tries to fire you, the union defends you and enforces a burden of proof on management before they can let you go. This is one of the key vital services of a union.

[The Fallen]

No line being bought. Once again, just the obvious truths you people deny on a daily basis. He was leading the march where they were chanting for dead cops. He's trying to distance himself from this now, after the fact. Sharpton is playing the role he always plays, divisive race baiter. Now two innocent Americans are dead because of it.

Benign? Don't be ridiculous! Your leaders have been stirring this pot for how long now? Their intentions couldn't be clearer. They've been trying to rekindle the civil rights glory days and ramp up racial tensions. My question is how good do you guys feel about it now? Now that two men that had nothing to do with either of these high profile cases have been murdered?

Now we have Ferguson protestors chanting "pigs in a blanket" referring to Ramos and Liu. That's the names of the victims, BTW. I've heard Michael Brown and Eric Garner countless times, but these guys are just NYC cops.

Even if Sharpton told the protesters to chant about wanting dead cops it doesn't matter.

Because this guy wasn't associated with the protesters or any protest movement. Did Sharpton and the protesters encourage him to attempt to kill his girlfriend too? This guy wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. Had there been no protests he still would've attempted to kill his girlfriend. And if he wanted to kill some cops he probably would've done it in MD. But since the protests and all the attention was in NYC, he figured he'd come up here and do it and garner more attention.

Should I link the couple in Vegas who killed two cops to the right wing and the Bundy wackos? Because there's clearly more of a link there.

[Altherion]

Sharpton has been nothing but an advocate for peaceful protests and immediately denounced the killings.

Sharpton's mode of operation is to march with people who are advocating things which are quite far from peaceful, but never actually say anything inappropriate himself. Then, when the violence inevitably occurs, he says that he has always advocated peaceful protest and denounces the violence. Unfortunately for him, he's been doing this since at least the Crown Heights riots so people have caught on.