|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 04 2015 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 03:57 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 03:33 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 03:10 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:
[quote]
i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge.
criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force
someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened. That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. On May 04 2015 02:46 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:53 Jormundr wrote:
Jesus, I thought conservatives were about individualism, self responsibility, and putting limits on big government. Turns out that I was wrong. Sure seems to me that big government wouldn't want to respect people's innocence until proven guilt. I think it's cute that you keep making discussions about me, and not about the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person"The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated: Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege." Have you looked at situations where cops have invoked the 5th? I can only find one other than this, and it doesn't lead me to believe police should have any less rights than you or I. I'm ok with punishing any of them that did not follow standard procedures, but I'm not ok with punishing them for using their constitutional rights. I think it's ironic you're so quick to abuse the justice system when it's in your favor after spending so many pages of this thread railing against how rigged the system is. What's funny is that you think that's what is happening. I never said they shouldn't be able to take the 5th. I just said they shouldn't be cops if they do. But the reason they shouldn't be cops isn't because they plead the 5th it's because they lied and deceived and are refusing to own up to it. The criminal proceeding are independent of whether they have done (or not done) enough to warrant being terminated from government employ. What is curious is how an American getting snatched off the street by the government without so much as probable cause, and then suffering fatal injuries while in government custody, and conservatives are worried about the government's right not to testify against itself. I don't remember such advocacy and deference to the 5th when it was Lois Lerner claiming it? I remember people without evidence of wrong doing calling it a scandal and worse. Claiming coverups and the like. Calling for her job and more. I don't remember the people defending cops now speaking up for her 5th amendment rights and arguing that her refusing to testify wasn't a sign of anything... Also have you asked yourself why you can only find one case of the police pleading the 5th? Or what it has in common with this situation? You know the trial is supposed to figure out their guilt right? Not the media's presentation of the case. The supposed lie is one of the things that trial will examine. Like I said, if they broke SOP, go ahead and punish them for that. But pleading the Fifth is a constitutional right. Saying you're ok with firing them for doing so is like saying you want them fired for free speech, or not wanting soldiers quartered in their homes. I think I can only find one case of police pleading the Fifth because it doesn't happen much. uhh ok... You seem to be skipping the part where I say they wouldn't be fired simply for pleading the fifth. But we don't need a trial to look at what we have and notice they have lied. Did you read the arrest report? Your analogy is way off base. Just to be clear though you feel/felt the same way about Lois Lerner pleading the 5th? Have you asked yourself why it doesn't happen much? I do. I have my suspicions about her, but I'm mature enough to know I could be wrong and should wait for all the facts. Which seems justified now, because data recovery experts have managed to save most of the missing emails. I read the arrest report. That they lied is part of the trial, because some of the charges depend on it. I know your opinion on why it doesn't happen much is that cops are never brought to trial. That doesn't really have any bearing though on this, because this is going to trial. So is 'scandal' an appropriate term to use for both situations or inappropriate for both? Yes lying is part of the trial but we don't need a trial to see some of the known lies/omissions. Based on your assumption you don't know why I think it doesn't happen much. You don't think the extremely rare circumstances of police pleading the fifth has anything to do with this situation or the way pleading the 5th is portrayed? Simply because it not coincidentally bypassed a grand jury and is going straight to trial? So we got the 5th issues, can we agree that the government snatching people off the street without probable cause and then allowing them to suffer fatal injuries in government custody, then claiming to have no knowledge of what happened is a problem right in conservative wheelhouses? Because I do find the silence curious.
Depends what you mean by scandalous. If you mean controversial, then sure, they're both controversial. If you mean that someone definitely did something wrong, I disagree. In both cases, we should wait and see what the investigations and trials find.
I think people unfortunately conflate pleading the fifth with an admission of guilt.
I think that fleeing unprovoked at the sight of police constitutes reasonable suspicion and is enough to stop him. I am against arresting people for nothing. But you can't deny that if you were a cop, and someone broke into a sprint and ran away the instant they saw you that you wouldn't suspect that that person was up to no good. So they had every right to stop him. I'm less sure about whether they were right to arrest him. If he fought them when they caught up to him, I'd say they were right, but in their own report they say he was detained without force. So yeah...
I personally suspect they were in the wrong, but I am mature enough to follow proper jurisprudence and wait for the trial to decide what's what.
|
On May 04 2015 04:26 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 04:18 Gorsameth wrote:
Unions are not the problem. American Unions are.
The difference in culture between unions in the US and those in the EU is simply massive. And for whatever reason it is stopping them from properly working in the US.
Over here (in Europe) in this situation a police union would ofc strive to have the trial be fair but they would also recognize that public trust is a big deal for the police to have and getting to the bottom of what happened is the most important thing. Lol. European unions are great. That's why neverending strikes for all kinds of important services, and governments going broke trying to accommodate pension demands.
Public employees usually don't have the same strike rights or strike rights at all (in the majority of European countries to my knowledge) so that's not a very great comparison.
|
On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:54 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 01:52 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
And no one is arguing that - stop trolling. some of those police officers saw someone perfom actions to kill an other human being, and they can reconcile that action with their understanding of being cops and you think people that find that problematic are trolling. See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying! i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge. criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened. That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:54 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 01:52 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
And no one is arguing that - stop trolling. some of those police officers saw someone perfom actions to kill an other human being, and they can reconcile that action with their understanding of being cops and you think people that find that problematic are trolling. See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying! i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge. criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened. That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played.
Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions?
On May 04 2015 04:29 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 03:57 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 03:33 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 03:10 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. On May 04 2015 02:46 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:53 Jormundr wrote:
Jesus, I thought conservatives were about individualism, self responsibility, and putting limits on big government. Turns out that I was wrong. Sure seems to me that big government wouldn't want to respect people's innocence until proven guilt. I think it's cute that you keep making discussions about me, and not about the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person"The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated: Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege." Have you looked at situations where cops have invoked the 5th? I can only find one other than this, and it doesn't lead me to believe police should have any less rights than you or I. I'm ok with punishing any of them that did not follow standard procedures, but I'm not ok with punishing them for using their constitutional rights. I think it's ironic you're so quick to abuse the justice system when it's in your favor after spending so many pages of this thread railing against how rigged the system is. What's funny is that you think that's what is happening. I never said they shouldn't be able to take the 5th. I just said they shouldn't be cops if they do. But the reason they shouldn't be cops isn't because they plead the 5th it's because they lied and deceived and are refusing to own up to it. The criminal proceeding are independent of whether they have done (or not done) enough to warrant being terminated from government employ. What is curious is how an American getting snatched off the street by the government without so much as probable cause, and then suffering fatal injuries while in government custody, and conservatives are worried about the government's right not to testify against itself. I don't remember such advocacy and deference to the 5th when it was Lois Lerner claiming it? I remember people without evidence of wrong doing calling it a scandal and worse. Claiming coverups and the like. Calling for her job and more. I don't remember the people defending cops now speaking up for her 5th amendment rights and arguing that her refusing to testify wasn't a sign of anything... Also have you asked yourself why you can only find one case of the police pleading the 5th? Or what it has in common with this situation? You know the trial is supposed to figure out their guilt right? Not the media's presentation of the case. The supposed lie is one of the things that trial will examine. Like I said, if they broke SOP, go ahead and punish them for that. But pleading the Fifth is a constitutional right. Saying you're ok with firing them for doing so is like saying you want them fired for free speech, or not wanting soldiers quartered in their homes. I think I can only find one case of police pleading the Fifth because it doesn't happen much. uhh ok... You seem to be skipping the part where I say they wouldn't be fired simply for pleading the fifth. But we don't need a trial to look at what we have and notice they have lied. Did you read the arrest report? Your analogy is way off base. Just to be clear though you feel/felt the same way about Lois Lerner pleading the 5th? Have you asked yourself why it doesn't happen much? I do. I have my suspicions about her, but I'm mature enough to know I could be wrong and should wait for all the facts. Which seems justified now, because data recovery experts have managed to save most of the missing emails. I read the arrest report. That they lied is part of the trial, because some of the charges depend on it. I know your opinion on why it doesn't happen much is that cops are never brought to trial. That doesn't really have any bearing though on this, because this is going to trial. So is 'scandal' an appropriate term to use for both situations or inappropriate for both? Yes lying is part of the trial but we don't need a trial to see some of the known lies/omissions. Based on your assumption you don't know why I think it doesn't happen much. You don't think the extremely rare circumstances of police pleading the fifth has anything to do with this situation or the way pleading the 5th is portrayed? Simply because it not coincidentally bypassed a grand jury and is going straight to trial? So we got the 5th issues, can we agree that the government snatching people off the street without probable cause and then allowing them to suffer fatal injuries in government custody, then claiming to have no knowledge of what happened is a problem right in conservative wheelhouses? Because I do find the silence curious. Depends what you mean by scandalous. If you mean controversial, then sure, they're both controversial. If you mean that someone definitely did something wrong, I disagree. In both cases, we should wait and see what the investigations and trials find. I think people unfortunately conflate pleading the fifth with an admission of guilt. I think that fleeing unprovoked at the sight of police constitutes reasonable suspicion and is enough to stop him. I am against arresting people for nothing. But you can't deny that if you were a cop, and someone broke into a sprint and ran away the instant they saw you that you wouldn't suspect that that person was up to no good. So they had every right to stop him. I'm less sure about whether they were right to arrest him. If he fought them when they caught up to him, I'd say they were right, but in their own report they say he was detained without force. So yeah... I personally suspect they were in the wrong, but I am mature enough to follow proper jurisprudence and wait for the trial to decide what's what.
How do you read "scandal" as "controversial" instead? They are different words with different meanings?
Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it.
Again we don't need to wait for a trial to know someone did something wrong. That Baltimore mom hitting her kid didn't wait for a trial to prove he did something wrong, and no one came out and said she was assaulting her son for something she didn't know he did. People were totally fine with just assuming he had done something illegal or worthy of assault. There was no trial for Hillary and people are more than willing to suggest what she did was wrong or suggest her not being fully forthcoming is worthy of questioning her character.
The hypocrisy in conservative circles (not necessarily here) is abundantly clear in situations like this. Seriously, if someone like Rush Limbaugh or Hannity were arrested without probable cause and ended up dead (due to injuries suffered while in custody) and the government had no explanation, the national conversation about government and such would look dramatically different. I can't see how anyone could deny that?
|
On May 04 2015 04:26 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 04:18 Gorsameth wrote:
Unions are not the problem. American Unions are.
The difference in culture between unions in the US and those in the EU is simply massive. And for whatever reason it is stopping them from properly working in the US.
Over here (in Europe) in this situation a police union would ofc strive to have the trial be fair but they would also recognize that public trust is a big deal for the police to have and getting to the bottom of what happened is the most important thing. Lol. European unions are great. That's why neverending strikes for all kinds of important services, and governments going broke trying to accommodate pension demands.
As i edited some are bad, most are fine. No we don't have constant strikes. A lot of unions actually took steps to help the companies their members were part of when the financial crisis hit by agreeing to wage freezes (and in some cases reductions).
Most are not there to extort companies.
|
On May 04 2015 04:30 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 04:26 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 04:18 Gorsameth wrote:
Unions are not the problem. American Unions are.
The difference in culture between unions in the US and those in the EU is simply massive. And for whatever reason it is stopping them from properly working in the US.
Over here (in Europe) in this situation a police union would ofc strive to have the trial be fair but they would also recognize that public trust is a big deal for the police to have and getting to the bottom of what happened is the most important thing. Lol. European unions are great. That's why neverending strikes for all kinds of important services, and governments going broke trying to accommodate pension demands. Public employees usually don't have the same strike rights or strike rights at all (in the majority of European countries to my knowledge) so that's not a very great comparison.
This may be true, since I don't have a full survey. However, my experience personally is mostly with UK/France, where crippling strikes are common (or were when I lived there).. and often in what should be essential services like firefighters and public transit. I'm also very aware of public sector pension problems in S. Europe. My general admiration for Germany is increased to know you have sensible rules on this kind of thing.
Don't get me wrong, unions can absolutely be a force for good. But too often they lead to all sorts of problem, just like any form of parochial tribalism.
|
Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it.
I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing.
The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet.
And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way.
|
On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:54 puerk wrote:
[quote]
some of those police officers saw someone perfom actions to kill an other human being, and they can reconcile that action with their understanding of being cops
and you think people that find that problematic are trolling.
See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying! i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge. criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened. That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:54 puerk wrote:
[quote]
some of those police officers saw someone perfom actions to kill an other human being, and they can reconcile that action with their understanding of being cops
and you think people that find that problematic are trolling.
See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying! i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge. criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened. That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions?
My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'.
Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad.
|
On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way.
I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting...
It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly).
On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying! i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge. criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened. That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying! i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge. criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened. That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad.
So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it.
EDIT: Farv's example works too.
|
On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying! i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge. criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened. That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying! i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge. criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened. That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad.
Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket."
Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem 
|
On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly).
By "not a big deal" I mean no one cared. It was a really unimportant event, whether the kid was a rioter or not.
I don't think what happens in court should be independent of their employment. Are you aware of how many minorities can't get jobs or have lost their jobs simply because they were arrested, even if they were later found innocent?
|
On May 04 2015 05:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly). By "not a big deal" I mean no one cared. It was a really unimportant event, whether the kid was a rioter or not. I don't think what happens in court should be independent of their employment. Are you aware of how many minorities can't get jobs or have lost their jobs simply because they were arrested, even if they were later found innocent?
If the kid wasn't a rioter there isn't really any justification for the child abuse (though being a rioter is not much of an excuse either).
Conservatives really don't get how ridiculous this stuff sounds do they?
Mad at the children when they use violence, but then support the parents they constantly berate when they use unjustified violence.
Police do something wrong. Son possibly responds with violence maybe just peaceful protest we don't know. People berate and marginalize him for using violence to express his discontent and talk about how he doesn't know 'the facts' ignoring that he knows police lied. Then a mother finds him (unaware of whether he had done anything wrong or not) and proceeded to use violence to change his behavior (wonder where he might have gotten the idea violence was ok from...)and she gets virally celebrated.
You not thinking it was a big deal says more about you than it does about whether it was a big deal or not.
|
On May 04 2015 05:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:
[quote]
i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge.
criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force
someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened. That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:
[quote]
i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge.
criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force
someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened. That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket." Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem
That wasn't his argument. He didn't write that critics of teacher's unions 'oftentimes' are silent. He wrote that all of those critics were silent, which my existence proved incorrect.
On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly). Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:
[quote]
i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge.
criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force
someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened. That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:
[quote]
i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge.
criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force
someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened. That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it. EDIT: Farv's example works too.
Of course it goes both ways. The rules of grammar and logic don't change based on political affiliation!
|
On May 04 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 05:11 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket." Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem That wasn't his argument. He didn't write that critics of teacher's unions 'oftentimes' are silent. He wrote that all of those critics were silent, which my existence proved incorrect. Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly). On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it. EDIT: Farv's example works too. Of course it goes both ways. The rules of grammar and logic don't change based on political affiliation!
First I guess we should start with that, until I said something about it, they were silent. Or simply said it's what the union is supposed to do. Radically different from what they say about teachers unions defending questionable teachers.
I said that it "seems". That being said, it still seems you represent a minority, clearly a minority position in context of the national conservative media.
I'll expect your support in defending the comment that "the actions of the PD in Baltimore and the national union is just more evidence of PD's and their unions across the country being broken institutions" then 
EDIT:
On March 05 2015 02:14 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2015 15:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2015 15:38 coverpunch wrote:On March 04 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Like I said, the investigations into the departments are a lot more illuminating than the cases on officers themselves. In Ferguson, Missouri, bias has been so pervasive that city officials sometimes used racial slurs in their emails. President Barack Obama would not stay in office, wrote one city official, since “what black man holds a steady job for four years.”
Black residents were twice as likely as whites to be searched during a routine traffic stop, although they were 26 percent less likely to carry contraband. African-Americans make up 67 percent of the city’s population but constitute 93 percent of its arrests.
Municipal courts heavily favored whites in deciding if cases would be dismissed. And the city used heavy fines to send many impoverished black residents to jail, part of a system that created a debtors’ prison.
Those were among the harsh findings of a Department of Justice civil rights investigation set to be released Wednesday whose contents were previewed to POLITICO by a source familiar with the investigation.
A law enforcement official familiar with the department’s civil rights probe found that the FPD frequently conducted traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and arrested individuals without probable cause.
The source also said that the investigation found Ferguson police routinely employed excessive force and violated the free speech rights of the accused.
The investigation found multiple violations by police of Ferguson residents’ Fourth Amendment rights, as well as significant racial bias within the largely-white force in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In addition to violations by police, the DOJ focused on the city’s municipal court system, which amassed revenue through excessive ticketing of residents living in or near poverty. The investigation alleges that this practice encouraged police misconduct.
Over 16,000 of Ferguson’s 21,000 residents had outstanding arrest warrants, the majority of which were the result of cases involving minor traffic or housing code violations.
Source While you were on point in highlighting the differences in treatment between black and white citizens in Ferguson, I feel like you really should have emphasized the first part where city officials are using racial slurs in e-mail and speaking badly about President Obama based on their racial prejudices. WTF is up with that. Well as a black American who has had their civil rights violated before, I found the systematic and flagrant abuse of American's (especially black American's) civil and constitutional rights a bit more important than typical right wing chain email rhetoric. I presume the conservatives are just about to rally behind the black population of Ferguson and elsewhere across the country as the government (the police) have been so egregiously violating the constitutional rights we all hold so dear? I presume they would support more reviews of other departments that have high rates of similar complaints to Ferguson? I'm sure conservatives must have something to say about such blatant abuse of Americans at the hands of the government? In their defense, a lot of conservatives were pretty pissed about the Eric Garner and Tamir Rice cases. Michael Brown is legally and ethically fuzzier, though obviously Ferguson PD has some serious cleaning up to do. Someone get Scott Walker in here! There's union-busting needs doing!
This was the most full-throated statement from any conservative against police unions I think there is prior to now.
Notice how it's eerily neglectful of the fact that Walker intentionally excluded Police (and fire fighters) from his union busting.
|
On May 04 2015 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:11 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:
[quote]
If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired.
Edit:
[quote]
Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:
[quote]
If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired.
Edit:
[quote]
Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket." Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem That wasn't his argument. He didn't write that critics of teacher's unions 'oftentimes' are silent. He wrote that all of those critics were silent, which my existence proved incorrect. On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly). On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:
[quote]
If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired.
Edit:
[quote]
Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:
[quote]
If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired.
Edit:
[quote]
Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it. EDIT: Farv's example works too. Of course it goes both ways. The rules of grammar and logic don't change based on political affiliation! First I guess we should start with that, until I said something about it, they were silent. Or simply said it's what the union is supposed to do. Radically different from what they say about teachers unions defending questionable teachers. I said that it " seems". That being said, it still seems you represent a minority, clearly a minority position in context of the national conservative media. I'll expect your support in defending the comment that "the actions of the PD in Baltimore and the national union is just more evidence of PD's and their unions across the country being broken institutions" then
Conservative media often complains about teachers unions because they almost exclusively support Democrats with campaign donations and have opposed education reforms that conservatives have wanted to see implemented. They're consistent political opponents and are treated as such.
|
On May 04 2015 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:11 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket." Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem That wasn't his argument. He didn't write that critics of teacher's unions 'oftentimes' are silent. He wrote that all of those critics were silent, which my existence proved incorrect. On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly). On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it. EDIT: Farv's example works too. Of course it goes both ways. The rules of grammar and logic don't change based on political affiliation! First I guess we should start with that, until I said something about it, they were silent. Or simply said it's what the union is supposed to do. Radically different from what they say about teachers unions defending questionable teachers. I said that it " seems". That being said, it still seems you represent a minority, clearly a minority position in context of the national conservative media. I'll expect your support in defending the comment that "the actions of the PD in Baltimore and the national union is just more evidence of PD's and their unions across the country being broken institutions" then Conservative media often complains about teachers unions because they almost exclusively support Democrats with campaign donations and have opposed education reforms that conservatives have wanted to see implemented. They're consistent political opponents and are treated as such.
I know. That's kind of my point?
|
On May 04 2015 09:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:11 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution.
Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution.
Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket." Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem That wasn't his argument. He didn't write that critics of teacher's unions 'oftentimes' are silent. He wrote that all of those critics were silent, which my existence proved incorrect. On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly). On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution.
Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution.
Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it. EDIT: Farv's example works too. Of course it goes both ways. The rules of grammar and logic don't change based on political affiliation! First I guess we should start with that, until I said something about it, they were silent. Or simply said it's what the union is supposed to do. Radically different from what they say about teachers unions defending questionable teachers. I said that it " seems". That being said, it still seems you represent a minority, clearly a minority position in context of the national conservative media. I'll expect your support in defending the comment that "the actions of the PD in Baltimore and the national union is just more evidence of PD's and their unions across the country being broken institutions" then Conservative media often complains about teachers unions because they almost exclusively support Democrats with campaign donations and have opposed education reforms that conservatives have wanted to see implemented. They're consistent political opponents and are treated as such. I know. That's kind of my point?
Glad we can all agree that both major parties are ideologically inconsistent.
|
On May 04 2015 10:16 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 09:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:11 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:
[quote]
Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
"This is unions being unions."
"Don't throw everyone into the same bucket."
lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket." Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem That wasn't his argument. He didn't write that critics of teacher's unions 'oftentimes' are silent. He wrote that all of those critics were silent, which my existence proved incorrect. On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly). On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:
[quote]
Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
"This is unions being unions."
"Don't throw everyone into the same bucket."
lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it. EDIT: Farv's example works too. Of course it goes both ways. The rules of grammar and logic don't change based on political affiliation! First I guess we should start with that, until I said something about it, they were silent. Or simply said it's what the union is supposed to do. Radically different from what they say about teachers unions defending questionable teachers. I said that it " seems". That being said, it still seems you represent a minority, clearly a minority position in context of the national conservative media. I'll expect your support in defending the comment that "the actions of the PD in Baltimore and the national union is just more evidence of PD's and their unions across the country being broken institutions" then Conservative media often complains about teachers unions because they almost exclusively support Democrats with campaign donations and have opposed education reforms that conservatives have wanted to see implemented. They're consistent political opponents and are treated as such. I know. That's kind of my point? Glad we can all agree that both major parties are ideologically inconsistent.
Of course we aren't just talking about the major parties though.
|
Ben Carson has announced he's running for President.
|
Carson has a slightly better chance of escaping obscurity than Sanders, but primarily due to the overwhelming shadow Hillary casts on any Democrat without instant name recognition. Neither should be more than podium-fillers come 2016.
|
On May 04 2015 09:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:11 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution.
Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution.
Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket." Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem That wasn't his argument. He didn't write that critics of teacher's unions 'oftentimes' are silent. He wrote that all of those critics were silent, which my existence proved incorrect. On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly). On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution.
Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution.
Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it. EDIT: Farv's example works too. Of course it goes both ways. The rules of grammar and logic don't change based on political affiliation! First I guess we should start with that, until I said something about it, they were silent. Or simply said it's what the union is supposed to do. Radically different from what they say about teachers unions defending questionable teachers. I said that it " seems". That being said, it still seems you represent a minority, clearly a minority position in context of the national conservative media. I'll expect your support in defending the comment that "the actions of the PD in Baltimore and the national union is just more evidence of PD's and their unions across the country being broken institutions" then Conservative media often complains about teachers unions because they almost exclusively support Democrats with campaign donations and have opposed education reforms that conservatives have wanted to see implemented. They're consistent political opponents and are treated as such. I know. That's kind of my point?
You tell me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
