Police abuse thread 4: end police unions?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BR,

You don't see putting Unions at odds with the general public as rather bizarre?

Let me put this another way.  The NFL player's association has a duty to defend a player from accusations of aggressive play that harms another player or to resist rule changes enacted for player safety because they will cost players money in fines.  Doesn't the Union there have a comensurate duty to protect the health and safety of its members by supporting these rule changes and disciplinary actions?  There seems to me to be a conflict of interest.

To bring this back to police officers underlying purpose is to protect and serve the public.  Aren't police Unions making their members less safe by supporting and defending the worst among them?

[BloodRider]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

BR,

You don't see putting Unions at odds with the general public as rather bizarre?

Let me put this another way.  The NFL player's association has a duty to defend a player from accusations of aggressive play that harms another player or to resist rule changes enacted for player safety because they will cost players money in fines.  Doesn't the Union there have a comensurate duty to protect the health and safety of its members by supporting these rule changes and disciplinary actions?  There seems to me to be a conflict of interest.

To bring this back to police officers underlying purpose is to protect and serve the public.  Aren't police Unions making their members less safe by supporting and defending the worst among them?

It is a conflict of interest.  But that doesn't mean getting rid of unions is the answer.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BR,

I'm not saying all Unions should be abolished.  I'm saying these conflicts need to be addressed not ignored.

[BloodRider]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

BR,

I'm not saying all Unions should be abolished.  I'm saying these conflicts need to be addressed not ignored.

Fine,  but you have to know that "Abolish all Unions" was brought up in this thread (by a fellow Libertarian no less), and all the posts you quoted were to counter the "Abolish all Unions" nonsense.  So surely you can see why it can be assumed you were taking up that mantle.  That said, I appreciate the clarification.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BR,

I think Unions in private context serve important purposes.  I don't want them abolished.

[DanteGabriel]

Been a while since it was a going topic in this thread, but Nebraska has mostly outlawed (or at least severely curtailed) civil forfeiture. Good job, Nebraska.

Quote

The newly signed law provides sweeping reforms. First and foremost, Nebraska now requires a criminal conviction to forfeit property. The accused must be convicted of an offense involving illegal drugs, child pornography or illegal gambling to lose their cash, vehicles, firearms or real estate. Nebraska joins just nine other states that require a criminal conviction as a prerequisite for most or all forfeiture cases. Following North Carolina and New Mexico, Nebraska is now the third state largely without civil forfeiture. In addition to the criminal conviction requirement, LB 1106 also enacts new reporting requirements for seizures and forfeitures.

But the legislation, introduced by Sen. Tommy Garrett, does not rectify the state’s incentive to forfeit property. Back in 1984, Nebraska voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that allocates fifty percent of drug forfeiture funds to law enforcement, with the other half directed to schools. Since 2011, agencies have received over $3 million in forfeiture proceeds under state law. According to a recent report by the ACLU of Nebraska, “significant amounts of money have been seized through the state system from people who have never been charged with a crime.” Nebraska’s motivation to police for profit remains unaltered by LB 1106—only another constitutional amendment can change that.

Yet LB 1106 does take aim at an even more egregious form of police profiteering. By participating in a federal forfeiture program known as “equitable sharing,” state and local agencies can move to forfeit property under federal law and receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds.

Tempted by the higher payout, police and prosecutors routinely turned to equitable sharing to federalize forfeiture cases. Between 2000 and 2013, Nebraska law enforcement collected more than $48 million in federal forfeiture funds, a report by the Institute for Justice found. A separate investigation by The Washington Postidentified 889 cash seizures “from people who were not charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued” that were conducted in Nebraska since 9/11.

To curtail equitable sharing, LB 1106 bans state and local agencies from transferring seized cash and property under $25,000. The new law does allow transfers to occur if the property was “physically seized by a federal agent” and if the person who had their property seized is “the subject of a federal prosecution.” The only other state that currently restricts equitable sharing is New Mexico, though its anti-circumvention limit is set at $50,000.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2016/04/20/nebraska-just-abolished-civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-to-take-property/#661a92e0159e

[BloodRider]

8 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Been a while since it was a going topic in this thread, but Nebraska has mostly outlawed (or at least severely curtailed) civil forfeiture. Good job, Nebraska.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2016/04/20/nebraska-just-abolished-civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-to-take-property/#661a92e0159e

FANTASTIC!