AllSeeingSkink wrote:You can't compare US cops actions to other countries because of one simple reason.... US citizens carry guns around with them as a regular thing.
The assumption in every other country is that the person you are talking to doesn't have a gun on their person, if they do they're already doing something wrong, the very fact they have a gun is enough to know they're doing something illegal.
In the US cops have to be under the assumption that the person they're approaching probably has a gun and they may have it legally or not.
It completely changes the tone of any encounter.
Having a gun here in Germany doesn't automatically mean you are doing something illegal, it's just that the hurdles for gun ownership are much higher than in the USA. And as far as I know US gun ownership heavily localised, depending on region and most people don't even own a gun. The stats about gun ownership are heavily skewed by some people owning multiple guns.
Here's the stuff I'm though about when I mentioned that I think their training is lacking: Just recently, a teenager dies because an office is scared by an aggressive dog, or how about that one dude a few years ago who killed a cop (if I remember correctly) and then had a car chase and a standoff in his house/cabin and the local police riddled a random car (not even fitting the suspect's car's description, wrong colour or something like that) and injured two asian women (I think the suspect was a black man). These types of overreactions are way too common.
I already mentioned in in the post you replied to that there may be reasons for why the police in the US has to consider certain different circumstances (didn't want to edge too close to "general US politics" again) but that still doesn't mean that their training is good. Even in the recent terror attacks over Europe the police was not willing to just shot as freely as the US police is in supposedly everyday situations. And I would postulate that a "terrorist attack with unknown number of attackers, locations, and types and number of weapons in confusing circumstances" can be considered a higher risk than a "random traffic stop".
Mario wrote: Having a gun here in Germany doesn't automatically mean you are doing something illegal, it's just that the hurdles for gun ownership are much higher than in the USA. And as far as I know US gun ownership heavily localised, depending on region and most people don't even own a gun. The stats about gun ownership are heavily skewed by some people owning multiple guns.
My understanding is that in Germany carry permits are extremely rare and typically only given to security and even then not your average security but the ones who are guarding something worth stealing.
These types of overreactions are way too common.
Cops make mistakes the world over, it's just the mistakes of American cops tend to be a bit more likely to end up in someone dead*** because there's guns everywhere
***including the cop themselves... the number of cops killed in the US is massively higher than other western countries as well.
Even in the recent terror attacks over Europe the police was not willing to just shot as freely as the US police is in supposedly everyday situations.
I think it depends on the situation, and I'd suggest as/if terrorist attacks become more prevalent in Europe and if you start to see on the order of the same number of Police being killed in Euope, in turn European police will get increasingly trigger happy as well. At least IMO.
And I would postulate that a "terrorist attack with unknown number of attackers, locations, and types and number of weapons in confusing circumstances" can be considered a higher risk than a "random traffic stop".
At a guess I'd suggest more cops are killed in random traffic stops in the US than terrorist attacks in Europe. Just a guess.
On the one hand you have stuff like Castile, on the other you have stuff like this (warning, graphic)....
So the claims of police officers killed...is that per capita or overall?
And still the chance of anything happening to an officer is incredibly small. They accepted that they are going into a job that has a small chance of a hazard. That means they need to use their training to not unneccesarily escalate a situation. Currently cops in the US are trained to use fear and intimidation. This is not an effective way to police a populace.
I've said this before but here in Northern Ireland the police are able to do their jobs effectively without resorting to fear and intimidation. And this is a place where there is a minority out to kill them at every opportunity. Up to planting bombs in their cars or luring them out to fake emergencies to shoot at them. So it is possible to still go softly softly in a dangerous environment.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: My understanding is that in Germany carry permits are extremely rare and typically only given to security and even then not your average security but the ones who are guarding something worth stealing.
Here's a overview, essentially if a gun is necessary you can get one (and that includes competitive shooting/members of registered gun clubs) and with some restrictions (mentally stable, reliable, no criminal record) There's more if you want to read the wikipedia entry. I don't need a gun and have no detailed knowledge about that stuff but getting a gun permit appears to be about as hard to get as a driver's license (understandable, in my opinion, as it's a huge responsibility).
Cops make mistakes the world over, it's just the mistakes of American cops tend to be a bit more likely to end up in someone dead*** because there's guns everywhere
***including the cop themselves... the number of cops killed in the US is massively higher than other western countries as well.
According to a department summary of the incident released later Thursday, two officers who encountered the armed off-duty officer ordered him to the ground. He complied. When they recognized the off-duty officer, they told him he could stand up and walk toward them.
Another officer just arriving at the scene saw the off-duty officer get up and, not knowing he was an officer, fired his weapon once at the man. He hit the off-duty officer in the arm, the department said.
I think it depends on the situation, and I'd suggest as/if terrorist attacks become more prevalent in Europe and if you start to see on the order of the same number of Police being killed in Euope, in turn European police will get increasingly trigger happy as well. At least IMO.
Here's a link for US police deaths: https://www.odmp.org/search/year (and wikipedia), To date there were 63 deaths in 2017 (of all type, including stuff like boating accidents and 9/11 related illness, about a third from gunfire; for comparison the 2016 numbers: 145, again with about a third by gunfire) and here's a list of people killed by the US police: http://killedbypolice.net/, or this one (specifically about gun deaths): 461
And I would postulate that a "terrorist attack with unknown number of attackers, locations, and types and number of weapons in confusing circumstances" can be considered a higher risk than a "random traffic stop".
At a guess I'd suggest more cops are killed in random traffic stops in the US than terrorist attacks in Europe. Just a guess.
On the one hand you have stuff like Castile, on the other you have stuff like this (warning, graphic)....
Above's the number for police deaths in the USA until now: 63. Compare that number with how much contact the police has with the population. I have no idea how to search for that. My guess is that terrorism is still of much smaller significance (because it's really rare in developed coountries) but the police deaths are not a huge number that warrants such actions. Does this really justify this amount of excessive force? If that video justifies such an amount of police violence then I can post you multiple videos that would justify much worse than the few BLM protests that happened.
On the upside, the city of St. Anthony seems to have been straightforward about this from the start. The police chief did not defend the shooting, they fired Yanez, and they are paying a $3 million settlement to the Castile family.
jmurph wrote: On the upside, the city of St. Anthony seems to have been straightforward about this from the start. The police chief did not defend the shooting, they fired Yanez, and they are paying a $3 million settlement to the Castile family.
Problem is that there are likely still places that will hire Yanez as a police officer or private security firms that might hire him.
I really dont get it, I would expect that punishment/conviction for police would be harsher than the general populace because they're supposed to be to a higher standard being the ones that are entrusted to enforce laws
But they walk from charges that would put average joe in prison for life.
jmurph wrote: On the upside, the city of St. Anthony seems to have been straightforward about this from the start. The police chief did not defend the shooting, they fired Yanez, and they are paying a $3 million settlement to the Castile family.
Yes, they also released stop statistics right away as well.
The police department and authorities handled things fairly well. From a Public Relations standpoint they did everything right.
Is that more or less dangerous than discharging a firearm into a motor vehicle with children in it because the driver, in keeping with the law, informed you that he had a gun?
Xenomancers wrote: Just pointing something out. The driver was stoned while operating a motor vehicle. With children in the car.
That would only matter if it made him become agitated or non compliant. Neither is alleged or in evidence. Frankly the cop needed it, maybe he would have been calmer and not blown the guy away.
So we agree it has nothing to do with making it okay to unload your weapon into a car with two other people in it, one of them being the child so endangered by pot?
Xenomancers wrote: Just pointing something out. The driver was stoned while operating a motor vehicle. With children in the car.
Relevant quote from the lawyers involved.
Gray said that autopsy results indicated Castile has high levels of THC in his blood, the chemical responsible for marijuana’s psychological effects, and was “stoned” while driving that day. The memo said Reynolds confirmed that the two were “smokers,” had marijuana in the car and had smoked marijuana before the stop that day.
St. Anthony police officer Jeronimo Yanez is charged in the fatal shooting of Philando Castile.
RAMSEY COUNTY JAIL
St. Anthony police officer Jeronimo Yanez is charged in the fatal shooting of Philando Castile.
“The status of being stoned (in an acute and chronic sense) explains why Mr. Castile, 1) did not follow the repeated directions of Officer Yanez; 2) stared straight ahead and avoided eye-contact; 3) never mentioned that he had a carry permit, but instead said he had a gun; and 4) did not show his hands,” the memo said.
But Robert Bennett, the civil lawyer representing Castile’s mother, Valerie Castile, said Thursday the argument is invalid because “contributory negligence is never a defense in a criminal prosecution.”
The defense motion is part of a campaign to blame the victim, he said. “It’s the designed play use by the police in defending themselves any time they kill a member of the public,” Bennett said, adding that Castile was killed by bullets, not marijuana use
Stevefamine wrote: I'm baffled at the hyper Pro Drug Anti Police stance here. Apparently Dakka has quite a few criminal leaning members
Except that the drug use had zero relevance on the circumstances shooting itself, and the drugs in question are legal in many states, was legal for medical and decriminalized for recreational use in the state this took place in.
Just because the driver was doing something irresponsible doesnt excuse the officer for doing something vastly more irresponsible, with far more tragic results. Thats what people have a problem with.
Had Castile been cited or arrested for a DUI, nobody would argue thats a bad thing, and we wouldnt be having this conversation. A cop firing multiple times into a car because he's incapable of good judgement and then skating on all charges is a whole other level of problem, and indicative of a far larger issue.
Aside from the absurdity of the "he was smoking pot in front of the child which means he could be irresponsible enough to draw his gun and start shooting people in front of his child, therefore I decided to do the responsible thing and draw my gun and start shooting people in front of the child" defense, it is also worth mentioning that despite his supposed impairment he was not pulled over for any kind of impaired driving and was able to follow all relevant traffic laws up until the moment he was killed.
Stevefamine wrote:I'm baffled at the hyper Pro Drug Anti Police stance here. Apparently Dakka has quite a few criminal leaning members
I don't use drugs but It's freaking pot, not some of the stuff that makes you aggressive or agitated (somebody can probably name something that could induce such behaviour). What's the worst that can happen, besides getting shot by a prejudiced and scared cop? I don't even drink much but pot is apparently overall less damaging to society than alcohol and should technically be preferred (but it's vilified and made illegal).
And the police just killed a man, I find the idea of not wanting that to happen too often quite normal and humane.
Xenomancers wrote: Just pointing something out. The driver was stoned while operating a motor vehicle. With children in the car.
And?
Immediate detention/jail. Same as a DUI.
And how would you do that to a corpse?
See the officer decided to shoot him before got far enough to assess his condition. You sound like you're trying to find any excuse to justify this killing.
I'm not sure about the state this occurred, but in NC and GA, a concealed carry permit cannot be legally exercised when you're under the influence (drugs or alcohol). If you get caught with your weapon while drinking or high you can get in serious trouble.
Maybe this a reason the NRA did not make a big deal of the the fact the victim was a concealed carry permit holder?
Ouze wrote: Sounds like a super hard reach to avoid seeing the extremely large, racist elephant in the room - but OK, sure.
That directed at me?
If so, I would be disappointed if the NRA chose to make an issue of a similar case regarding a victim of ANY color. When engaging in an activity which is against the 'law abiding safe gun ownership' theme the NRA typically endorses, you can't really expect them to take up your case as a 'good example of a gun owning citizen'.
I just brought it up because it seems folks were wondering why the NRA did not make an issue of this case (I wondered the same thing until I found out the victim had been smoking pot).
I believe the cop fethed up massively and wish the prosecution had been able to turn that into a conviction. Totally separate issue from the NRA aspect in my mind.
Ouze wrote: Sounds like a super hard reach to avoid seeing the extremely large, racist elephant in the room - but OK, sure.
That directed at me?
If so, I would be disappointed if the NRA chose to make an issue of a similar case regarding a victim of ANY color. When engaging in an activity which is against the 'law abiding safe gun ownership' theme the NRA typically endorses, you can't really expect them to take up your case as a 'good example of a gun owning citizen'.
I just brought it up because it seems folks were wondering why the NRA did not make an issue of this case (I wondered the same thing until I found out the victim had been smoking pot).
It took days for that to be a matter of public record, and the NRA usually puts out something immediately. This is a contemporary piece of news on the subject.
Does the NRA usually put out something immediately? Honest question. Seems a REALLY poor policy to do so and I bet their lawyers advise against it, just because cases like this will pop up. Defending a guy who goes against the principles of your organization is bad policy.
CptJake wrote: Does the NRA usually put out something immediately? Honest question.
Pulse nightclub shooting: NRA puts out an op-ed 48 hours later, blaming the Obama administration and political correctness
San Bernadino shooting: NRA puts out an op-ed 26 hours later, blaming the Obama administration's foreign policy
Virginia reporter shooting: NRA has their web series host post a video 4 days later, blaming the Obama adminsitration and Hillary Clinton for trying to politicize the tragedy
Navy Yard Shooting: NRA goes on morning show, blames the military for not having more armed staff available.
Charleston church shooting: NRA board member posts 17 hours later, blaming the pastor who was killed in the attack because he voted against concealed carry.
Philando Castile was killed on July 6th, 2016. It came out publicly that he had marijuana in his system December 15th, 2016.
feth the NRA.
Also, just a reminder - not to you in specific, I mean we fundamentally agree - but in general - that this was the cop's argument for why he was in fear for his life.
"I thought if he's, if he has the, the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana in front of the five-year-old girl and risk her lungs and risk her life by giving her secondhand smoke and the front seat passenger doing the same thing then what, what care does he give about me," Yanez told the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
Secondhand smoke as a pretense for executing someone.
CptJake wrote: I'm not sure about the state this occurred, but in NC and GA, a concealed carry permit cannot be legally exercised when you're under the influence (drugs or alcohol). If you get caught with your weapon while drinking or high you can get in serious trouble.
Maybe this a reason the NRA did not make a big deal of the the fact the victim was a concealed carry permit holder?
This is true. Setting aside the NRA lack of response though, which is not uncommon in actual cases, that wouldn't be an issue unless he was arrested. The tape conversation had him speaking in a calm manner and doing what he was legally supposed to be doing.
Note: I know you're not defending any positions here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Does the NRA usually put out something immediately? Honest question. Seems a REALLY poor policy to do so and I bet their lawyers advise against it, just because cases like this will pop up. Defending a guy who goes against the principles of your organization is bad policy.
I've not seen them put anything except missives against legislation or cases testing legislation myself, but I don't read their stuff much given the massive junk mail blitz they do when I am a member.
Xenomancers wrote: Just pointing something out. The driver was stoned while operating a motor vehicle. With children in the car.
Just pointing something out. The officer put 7 rounds into a vehicle with an unarmed female passenger. With children in the car.
Maybe the officer should have smoked a joint first to chill out....
yep. We've had this before, especially in JDs that are antiCHL where the police will be very jumpy. At least in Texas that has mellowed out (plus its almost an auto "get a warning" when pulled over for speeding unless you're a jerk of course).
I hadn't thought about it before but the NRA quiet is vexing on it. But I have other issues with the NRA now, so thats not new.
CptJake wrote: Does the NRA usually put out something immediately? Honest question.
Pulse nightclub shooting: NRA puts out an op-ed 48 hours later, blaming the Obama administration and treating people with respect
San Bernadino shooting: NRA puts out an op-ed 26 hours later, blaming the Obama administration's foreign policy
Virginia reporter shooting: NRA has their web series host post a video 4 days later, blaming the Obama adminsitration and Hillary Clinton for trying to politicize the tragedy
Navy Yard Shooting: NRA goes on morning show, blames the military for not having more armed staff available.
Charleston church shooting: NRA board member posts 17 hours later, blaming the pastor who was killed in the attack because he voted against concealed carry.
Philando Castile was killed on July 6th, 2016. It came out publicly that he had marijuana in his system December 15th, 2016.
feth the NRA.
The NRA doesn't really represent gun owners, and hasn't for a long time. They have long ceased from being the organization that moves to protect people's rights, to one that only cares about attacking D's and helping R's.
There have been a push away from this as more and more black people become gun owners (many being pushed by the apparent lack of concern over their lives by the police, and violent racist rhetoric that has popped up over the past few years) but it's not really going to change until Wayne LaPierre and his filth are gone.
The NRA doesn't give a gak about gun owners, maybe they did at some point, but they don't anymore.
The NRA is a lobbying and advertising organization and only serves the interests of arms manufacturers. They only care about 2nd Amendment issues as long as those issues result in you spending money and buying weapons. Your freedoms and rights are only important as long as they result in cash flow to the NRA and the firearm industry.
d-usa wrote: The NRA doesn't give a gak about gun owners, maybe they did at some point, but they don't anymore.
The NRA is a lobbying and advertising organization and only serves the interests of arms manufacturers. They only care about 2nd Amendment issues as long as those issues result in you spending money and buying weapons. Your freedoms and rights are only important as long as they result in cash flow to the NRA and the firearm industry.
feth the NRA.
Lets move off this shall we as thats US politics and the opinions of nongun owners about the NRA do not interest me which I am sure are now going to infest this thread in three two one...
Ouze wrote: Sounds like a super hard reach to avoid seeing the extremely large, racist elephant in the room - but OK, sure.
That directed at me?
If so, I would be disappointed if the NRA chose to make an issue of a similar case regarding a victim of ANY color. When engaging in an activity which is against the 'law abiding safe gun ownership' theme the NRA typically endorses, you can't really expect them to take up your case as a 'good example of a gun owning citizen'.
I just brought it up because it seems folks were wondering why the NRA did not make an issue of this case (I wondered the same thing until I found out the victim had been smoking pot).
I believe the cop fethed up massively and wish the prosecution had been able to turn that into a conviction. Totally separate issue from the NRA aspect in my mind.
It's directed at me - I am a racist for paraphrasing the defense attorney directly. LOL.
Xenomancers wrote: Just pointing something out. The driver was stoned while operating a motor vehicle. With children in the car.
Just pointing something out. The officer put 7 rounds into a vehicle with an unarmed female passenger. With children in the car.
Maybe the officer should have smoked a joint first to chill out....
First I just want to say - I'm glad this guy isn't patrolling the streets anymore - as both a pot smoker and a gun owner - It's a good thing hes off the streets. However, being in a nation of laws, it's a good idea to follow those laws. Smoking with kids in the car while driving and carrying a gun is not only excessive dumb - it's also illegal. When you are doing illegal things cops are much more likely to shoot you than when you are not doing illegal things. All the jury needs to do is prove a reasonable doubt for the charge of manslaughter. Is it reasonable to assume that a cop knowing a dude is stoned and not complying with him might do something really stupid? Like pull out his gun and try to outgun 2 cops who are trained to kill - No - it's not. So it's no surprise to me that he didn't get charged with manslaughter or murder. I'm glad we have a legal system that looks at things objectively.
Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.
We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.
Frazzled wrote: Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.
We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.
Frazzled wrote: Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.
We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.
Obey the law, citizen, or face the Peacemaker.
Obey the law, citizen, or face the Glock. corrected your typo...
Frazzled wrote: Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.
We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.
Frazzled wrote: Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.
We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.
Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.
Do any jurisdictions have the death penalty for driving under the influence?
Frazzled wrote: Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.
We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.
Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.
You are correct. Weed is legal in multiple states. Jaywalking is a substantially higher offense. Using the NK rule. They would have to drop mortar rounds on preregistered positions.
Frazzled wrote: Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.
We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.
"I thought if he's, if he has the, the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana in front of the five-year-old girl and risk her lungs and risk her life by giving her secondhand smoke and the front seat passenger doing the same thing then what, what care does he give about me," Yanez told the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
Yes. He "knew or suspected he was stoned" and used it as justification for why he opened fire.
Out of concern for the five-year-old girl who was in the car that he opened frigging fire into.
Frazzled wrote: Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.
We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.
Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.
Both are non violent, victimless crimes. He also has no proof he smoked in front of the child.
Jaywalking seems far more dangerous to me, honestly.
Frazzled wrote: Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.
We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.
Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.
Both are non violent, victimless crimes. He also has no proof he smoked in front of the child.
Jaywalking seems far more dangerous to me, honestly.
Driving under the influence is probably a cause of more accidents/injuries/deaths than jaywalking. Just a guess on my part, but one I am confident making.
Frazzled wrote: Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.
We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.
Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.
Both are non violent, victimless crimes. He also has no proof he smoked in front of the child.
Jaywalking seems far more dangerous to me, honestly.
Driving under the influence is probably a cause of more accidents/injuries/deaths than jaywalking. Just a guess on my part, but one I am confident making.
Seeing as how "DUI" encompasses everything from driving while under the influence of prescription medication to alcohol to cocaine to marijuana...
It's like me saying "Violent deaths account for most murders. I'm confident in saying this."
Paulsen spent a considerable amount of time questioning why Yanez would say Castile was going for his gun when it made zero sense for him to do so.
Other officers soon arrived and Yanez is heard cursing and saying he told Castile to stop.
Paulsen reminded the jury that a bullet hit Castile in what would have been his trigger finger – but there was no bullet damage around his pocket where he had the gun. Leary refused a jury request to view a post-shooting video interview with Yanez by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, excerpts of which were read in court. “He had no complaints”, prosecutor Jeffrey Paulsen said at officer Jeronimo Yanez’s manslaughter trial. While it captures what was said between the two men and shows Yanez firing into the vehicle, it does not show what happened inside the auto or what Yanez might have seen.
So we have physical evidence that was submitted in court that's rather conclusive that the gun was still in Castile's pocket when the police processed the scene after the shooting, the hand with which Castile was allegedly reaching for the gun sustained a bullet wound but the bullet that struck Castile's trigger finger did not impact on the gun or the pocket in which the gun was located. Which just further proves that the fear that Officer Yanez felt was a construction of his own mind that was only supported by Castile's ambiguous arm movements. There was no imminent threat so there was no justification to open fire.
The marijuana use is a complete red herring that has no bearing on the incident itself. Whatever amount of marijuana Castile used prior to operating his vehicle it wasn't enough to impair his ability to drive. Prior to being pulled over for being the same ethnicity as a robbery suspect and having a broken taillight Castile was driving in a safe and lawful manner, there was no moving violation that triggered the stop, he obeyed police instruction to pull over, spoke to Officer Yanez in a calm and respectful tone, and fulfilled his obligation to inform the police he was lawfully armed. So right up to the point when Castile was shot there was no evidence that recent marijuana usage was impairing his cognitive or motor skills but we're supposed to believe that Castile was suddenly overcome with an irrational homicidal urge to attempt to murder the cops because he smoked marijuana earlier in the day? Nobody in this thread is arguing that it's a smart idea to willfully flaunt laws against recreational drug use but there is zero evidence that Castile's marijuana usage caused him to have sudden irrational murderous rages. There are legitimate medical applications for marijuana, we have a decent sized body of knowledge on it and sudden homicidal tendencies aren't an acknowledged side affect of marijuana or THC.
Frazzled wrote: Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.
We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.
Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.
Both are non violent, victimless crimes. He also has no proof he smoked in front of the child.
Jaywalking seems far more dangerous to me, honestly.
Driving under the influence is probably a cause of more accidents/injuries/deaths than jaywalking. Just a guess on my part, but one I am confident making.
Seeing as how "DUI" encompasses everything from driving while under the influence of prescription medication to alcohol to cocaine to marijuana...
It's like me saying "Violent deaths account for most murders. I'm confident in saying this."
I'm not sure of your point. Regardless of the substance, DUI is arguably more responsible for injuries/accidents/deaths than jaywalking. I'm comparing the effects of two different crimes, you're mixing 'violent deaths' and murders. Not even close to my point.
Frazzled wrote: Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.
We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.
Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.
Both are non violent, victimless crimes. He also has no proof he smoked in front of the child.
Jaywalking seems far more dangerous to me, honestly.
Driving under the influence is probably a cause of more accidents/injuries/deaths than jaywalking. Just a guess on my part, but one I am confident making.
Seeing as how "DUI" encompasses everything from driving while under the influence of prescription medication to alcohol to cocaine to marijuana...
It's like me saying "Violent deaths account for most murders. I'm confident in saying this."
I'm not sure of your point. Regardless of the substance, DUI is arguably more responsible for injuries/accidents/deaths than jaywalking. I'm comparing the effects of two different crimes, you're mixing 'violent deaths' and murders. Not even close to my point.
Sure, a DUI is. But I can also say the same about guns while using broad strokes and then you would get really upset. Lets not go there.
So lets see that DUI information dealing specifically with Marijuana. Because we are talking about a specific substance.
Of course driving while stoned is DUI, and I hope nobody in here is trying to claim it is not. But we are getting sidetracked from the real issue, which is that this chickengak cop panicked and murdered a man, then weaseled out of it with "he was high, so I had to shoot him" bullgak. This is a travesty of justice.
Frazzled wrote: Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.
We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.
Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.
Yeah, there are plenty of places where pot is legal, so Fraz went with the more series crime.
Own your stupid bs statements, or don't make them.
But this was obviously just a false flag op to distract us from who we all know is the real zodiac killer.
We all know who...
Spoiler:
Back on topic: according to some of the jurors... the prosecution over-charged. Not sure how to square that, but if the prosecution's the blame, maybe they should've included lessor charges.
Frazzled wrote: Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.
We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.
But this was obviously just a false flag op to distract us from who we all know is the real zodiac killer.
We all know who...
Spoiler:
Back on topic: according to some of the jurors... the prosecution over-charged. Not sure how to square that, but if the prosecution's the blame, maybe they should've included lessor charges.
What were the actual charges tried? Because while over-prosecution is definitely a thing, you can't really fault the prosecutors if the charges they filed fit the crime. Especially since, IANAL, but I watched a lot of Law & Order, they have to be able to justify why all those charges are there. So if they feel 'murder 1' is an appropriate charge, but they wanted to be sure to nail the dude on _something_ so they included 'assault with a deadly weapon,' they would have to justify why 'you feel it's light enough to merit an assault charge, so why do you think it justifies murder 1 as well?'
But this was obviously just a false flag op to distract us from who we all know is the real zodiac killer.
We all know who...
Spoiler:
Back on topic: according to some of the jurors... the prosecution over-charged. Not sure how to square that, but if the prosecution's the blame, maybe they should've included lessor charges.
There were lesser charges included in the case, but they did not convict on any of those either so I am calling BS.
d-usa wrote: He was able to drive without any signs of impairment, and was not pulled over for suspected DUI.
Which any who has smoked weed before can attest is quite easy to do, or at least that's what I've been told.
Frazzled wrote: I hadn't thought about it before but the NRA quiet is vexing on it.
Not really because the NRA is absurdly pro-law enforcement worship (as long as they aren't the federal jack-booted thugs) and to speak out against the officer in this case would alienate a huge chunk of their target demographic, who are also typically pro-law enforcement worship.
I understand why the exist, and can support certain of their efforts, but police unions and the "blue wall" is absolute cancer.
As long as the "blue wall" is allowed to exist, all it shows it that there are no "few bad cops." When the supposedly large group of good cops is defended the "few rotten apples," they cease to be good.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I understand why the exist, and can support certain of their efforts, but police unions and the "blue wall" is absolute cancer.
As long as the "blue wall" is allowed to exist, all it shows it that there are no "few bad cops." When the supposedly large group of good cops is defended the "few rotten apples," they cease to be good.
I made the same argument about teachers unions protecting bad teachers. I got horrendously mocked.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I understand why the exist, and can support certain of their efforts, but police unions and the "blue wall" is absolute cancer.
As long as the "blue wall" is allowed to exist, all it shows it that there are no "few bad cops." When the supposedly large group of good cops is defended the "few rotten apples," they cease to be good.
I made the same argument about teachers unions protecting bad teachers. I got horrendously mocked.
Unions exist to protect dues paying union members, that's it. Police unions will protect dues paying bad cops even if its detrimental to the community the police are supposed to protect and serve. Teachers unions protect dues paying bad teachers even if it inhibits the ability for schools to educate students. The baseball players union protects dues paying players that use steroids even if it damages the game. Autoworker unions protect dues paying auto workers even if it quickens the car companies path to insolvency and bailouts. Unions are all about getting money and using that money to gain power and exercise influence for their own purposes that are often only tangently connected to any altruistic goals or the public good.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I understand why the exist, and can support certain of their efforts, but police unions and the "blue wall" is absolute cancer.
As long as the "blue wall" is allowed to exist, all it shows it that there are no "few bad cops." When the supposedly large group of good cops is defended the "few rotten apples," they cease to be good.
I made the same argument about teachers unions protecting bad teachers. I got horrendously mocked.
skyth wrote: Unions exist to give a collective voice to workers and to put their bargaining power on par with the employers.
Employees don't need to form a union in order to exercise their right to collective bargaining.
They do need to organise, and joining together into something a little more united is pretty unavoidable.
It's not inevitable. Employees of a municipal police dept could choose to exercise their right to collective bargaining, select their representatives for negotiation and never form a union that collects dues, becomes political and works to oppose govt efforts to impose accountability and transparency and defends bad cops and bad policies.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I understand why the exist, and can support certain of their efforts, but police unions and the "blue wall" is absolute cancer.
As long as the "blue wall" is allowed to exist, all it shows it that there are no "few bad cops." When the supposedly large group of good cops is defended the "few rotten apples," they cease to be good.
I disagree completely. The union is there to protect their members.
However, this action did not help their members and was a P.R. Blunder. They should have just been silent, or welcomed more training.
Unions have a place, and their existence overall is a good thing. When unions help bad apples keep their job, it's because the employer didn't do their due diligence before firing them. Unions are no different than some of our constitutional rights. They don't exist to protect the guilty, they exist to make sure proper procedures are followed to protect the innocent.
Most police unions are just completely tone deaf, and I fear that the "I'm the law" mentality that infects some cops also frequently infects some unions. This is also further exacerbated by the "we are not a bunch of racist killers" reactions from the unions and their completely wrong way of voicing that reaction. They also need to realize that being pissed off that there are race-biased triggerhappy cops out there does not mean that we think all cops are racist killers.
These unions can do their job AND keep their mouth shut at the same time. Lets take any of these shootings as an example: every one of those departments has a contract that stipulates how these shootings are investigated and handled. Unions should very much fight for the cop being investigated and make sure the investigation proceeds as stipulated in their contract. If the contract guarantees paid time off during the investigation, then provide it. If the union guarantees a lawyer to members, provide it. If the contract says "you can't do X to the officer during the investigation", then fight of the department tries to do that. The union does not have to sit back and let the department steamroll an officer to appease an angry populace. But the union can do all of that without talking gak about the dead guy, BLM, how people just need to respect the cops more if they want to survive a stop, etc. Their job is to ensure that their members receive the full benefits of the agreed upon contract, it's not to act as PR persons and defender of public opinion. That's the problem with the Blue Line mentality.
Somewhat related, I saw a nice picture that sums up the issue with that mentality the other day. It was a picture of a car that had the "blue line" sticker right next to a "don't tread on me" sticker, and the caption "pick a side". Those are two stickers that really don't belong together.
skyth wrote: Unions exist to give a collective voice to workers and to put their bargaining power on par with the employers.
Employees don't need to form a union in order to exercise their right to collective bargaining.
They do need to organise, and joining together into something a little more united is pretty unavoidable.
It's not inevitable. Employees of a municipal police dept could choose to exercise their right to collective bargaining, select their representatives for negotiation and never form a union that collects dues, becomes political and works to oppose govt efforts to impose accountability and transparency and defends bad cops and bad policies.
It's the most efficient way to exist. Besides, unions need to be political and the only real way of doing that is with money. Not like anti-union people/employers aren't doing that.
Even police unions are a good thing in general. Police officers could easily be used as scapegoats and need to be protected from being disposed of for political reasons when it is a structural problem that causes the issue. There needs to be checks and balances.
Do unions some times go too far? Yes, but I'd rather them erring on the side of protecting their members as that is really their reason for existing and there is a huge power imbalance between employer and employee without that. Reminds me of a saying...I'd rather 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished...
Co'tor Shas wrote: I understand why the exist, and can support certain of their efforts, but police unions and the "blue wall" is absolute cancer.
As long as the "blue wall" is allowed to exist, all it shows it that there are no "few bad cops." When the supposedly large group of good cops is defended the "few rotten apples," they cease to be good.
I disagree completely. The union is there to protect their members.
However, this action did not help their members and was a P.R. Blunder. They should have just been silent, or welcomed more training.
Certainly, I am not against police unions in concept (I'm rather supportive of all unions), just that they should stay out of this gak. Don't protect bad officers. And the "blue wall" is there, Union or no.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I understand why the exist, and can support certain of their efforts, but police unions and the "blue wall" is absolute cancer.
As long as the "blue wall" is allowed to exist, all it shows it that there are no "few bad cops." When the supposedly large group of good cops is defended the "few rotten apples," they cease to be good.
I disagree completely. The union is there to protect their members.
However, this action did not help their members and was a P.R. Blunder. They should have just been silent, or welcomed more training.
Certainly, I am not against police unions in concept (I'm rather supportive of all unions), just that they should stay out of this gak. Don't protect bad officers. And the "blue wall" is there, Union or no.
The issue here, is that in almost every public sector union is that they have their own version of "the blue wall".
Firing a public employee is really, really difficult due to union protections.
Hence why the calls to "outlaw" public sector unions is seen as panacea to mitigate things like "the blue wall".
For me... I'd favor the law such that it prohibits public sector unions from donating to candidates or PACS. They can still collective bargain and all that... but, let's be honest that the current incestuous status-quo whereby the public sector unions being big donors to public officials who's supposed to negotiate on the taxpayer's behalf is an enormous conflict of interests.
It's no more of a conflict of interest as a PAC made up of car manufacturers donating to get people elected that are supposed to legislate regulations to protect me from car manufacturers.
But talking about the political influences of unions and PACs would probably be considered political talk, so we better avoid that tangent.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I understand why the exist, and can support certain of their efforts, but police unions and the "blue wall" is absolute cancer.
As long as the "blue wall" is allowed to exist, all it shows it that there are no "few bad cops." When the supposedly large group of good cops is defended the "few rotten apples," they cease to be good.
I disagree completely. The union is there to protect their members.
However, this action did not help their members and was a P.R. Blunder. They should have just been silent, or welcomed more training.
Certainly, I am not against police unions in concept (I'm rather supportive of all unions), just that they should stay out of this gak. Don't protect bad officers. And the "blue wall" is there, Union or no.
The issue here, is that in almost every public sector union is that they have their own version of "the blue wall".
Firing a public employee is really, really difficult due to union protections.
Hence why the calls to "outlaw" public sector unions is seen as panacea to mitigate things like "the blue wall".
For me... I'd favor the law such that it prohibits public sector unions from donating to candidates or PACS. They can still collective bargain and all that... but, let's be honest that the current incestuous status-quo whereby the public sector unions being big donors to public officials who's supposed to negotiate on the taxpayer's behalf is an enormous conflict of interests.
That wouldn't be a bad step. I personally detest what unions have become(essentially almost as bad as what they originally were meant to counteract).
Unions should only exist to collectively bargain with employers and provide legal defense for their members. I would also say that unions should only exist on a very local level. No massive state or country wide unions.
Grey Templar wrote: That wouldn't be a bad step. I personally detest what unions have become(essentially almost as bad as what they originally were meant to counteract).
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This isn't the fething 80's anymore, we aren't talking about the mafia. The "worst" thing unions do is union-only shops, and even then it's still your choice to work their or not (do you want to benefit from their labor or not).
Unions should only exist to collectively bargain with employers and provide legal defense for their members. I would also say that unions should only exist on a very local level. No massive state or country wide unions.
Why not? They have to compete with massive multi-nationals to secure the well-being of their members. I mean unless you are suggesting we regulate corporations in a similar way :
Grey Templar wrote: That wouldn't be a bad step. I personally detest what unions have become(essentially almost as bad as what they originally were meant to counteract).
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This isn't the fething 80's anymore, we aren't talking about the mafia. The "worst" thing unions do is union-only shops, and even then it's still your choice to work their or not (do you want to benefit from their labor or not).
Unions should only exist to collectively bargain with employers and provide legal defense for their members. I would also say that unions should only exist on a very local level. No massive state or country wide unions.
Why not? They have to compete with massive multi-nationals to secure the well-being of their members. I mean unless you are suggesting we regulate corporations in a similar way :
Sure, we could have similar regulations for corporations. But lots of things would have to be scrapped to do that, including a lot of things that currently hold corporations liable for wrong-doing(can't have a corporation be considered a person for criminal or civil charges, but also disallow them to partake in political action).
Grey Templar wrote: That wouldn't be a bad step. I personally detest what unions have become(essentially almost as bad as what they originally were meant to counteract).
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This isn't the fething 80's anymore, we aren't talking about the mafia. The "worst" thing unions do is union-only shops, and even then it's still your choice to work their or not (do you want to benefit from their labor or not).
Unions should only exist to collectively bargain with employers and provide legal defense for their members. I would also say that unions should only exist on a very local level. No massive state or country wide unions.
Why not? They have to compete with massive multi-nationals to secure the well-being of their members. I mean unless you are suggesting we regulate corporations in a similar way :
It's not the 19th century anymore either. State and Federal labor laws aren't going to magically disappear and kids aren't going to be working 60 hours a week in textile mills if we didn't have labor unions.
Corporations, unions and individuals should all be subject to comprehensive campaign finance regulations that limit political donations to small donations from individual citizens. Corporations and unions should be entitled to first amendment rights that allow them to spend money on media buys to promote their ideas/agendas, not allow them to try to purchase political influence from politicians. The worst part of the McCutcheon decision was that the Roberts court affirmed that contributing large sums of money into politician's campaigns doesn't in and of itself qualify as an attempt to purchase under influence or access to a politician and therefore doesn't meet the quid pro quo corruption standard which cements special interest money being poured into campaigns is a normal aspect of US politics and its going to be extremely difficult for any future SCOTUS court to unring that bell.
I believe everyone has the right to control his/her own labor, the right to agree to a labor contract of his/her choosing and the right to join with their peers and collectively bargain. What I don't support is public sector unions wrecking budgets and corrupting politics. Look at Illinois, the state as $251 billion in unfunded pension obligations to state employees. Illinois collected $36 billion in tax revenue in 2012, it would take 7 years of dedicating every penny of state tax revenue to pensions to close the gap. That money is never going to be there, anyone with an understanding of basic math would recognize that there's no way for Illinois to fund hundreds of billions of dollars in pension obligations but that didn't stop unions from wanting to win those concessions at the negotiating table or the politicians courting union money, endorsements and votes from agreeing to them and it didn't stop either side from kicking the can down the road and believing that all that money could be gotten from the residents of Illinois somehow at some point in the future. Now the state is heading towards a bankruptcy filing that will not benefit the politicians or the unions or the residents of the state and the same fiscal catastrophe is looming for other states across the country.
To bring this back on topic, unions have a very narrow focus, taking care of union members. That's why you don't see a positive reaction to the new descalation training announced in Minnesota and why you don't see a bigger push for more training for cops from their union, because the more rigorous the qualifications get the harder it is for people to pass them and it leads to fewer people becoming cops or remaining on the force and the union wants as many cops as possible on the job and paying dues. Having a smaller, better trained police force would be better for everyone except the union's coffers. So we get minimal training (seriously any gun owning citizen, cop or otherwise, should shoot much more often than the typical annual PD requirements because those requirements are woefully inadequate for developing functional proficiency) and cops like Yanez going out and augmenting that training with private courses run by tacticool egomaniacs that preach to cops that they need to have a plan to kill everyone they meet. They show highlight reels of the statistically rare cop murders at traffic stops to scare cops into believing that they need this tactical training course because the next citizen they pull over might try to murder them and they need to be able to react in a fraction of a second and kill that person first. That's the kind of fear mongering bs that contributed to Yanez being panicky, shooting Castile and costing himself his job and his employer a $10 million civil suit settlement.
By championing bad officers as forcefully as good ones the union reinforces the incredibly insular attitude of police forces. That contributes to people making the intellectually dishonest argument that Castile repeatedly driving on a suspended license makes him a dangerous repeat offender and that his recreational use of marijuana makes him a sociopath with possible homicidal tendencies. Driving on a suspended license repeatedly doesn't make Castile a hardened criminal it simply shows that he needs to get to work to keep his job and income and that having his DL suspended doesn't make viable public transit alternatives suddenly manifest themselves. Driving on a suspended license isn't severe enough to get the state of Minnesota to revoke his license to lawfully carry a concealed handgun, it certainly isn't proof that Castile was a dangerous criminal. These are just the inane justifications people will push rather than criticize a police officer. When police unions and supporters can't even admit that a problem exists there is no hope of getting cooperation to enact proactive solutions.
Indeed. Unions have, essentially, practically made themselves no longer necessary. They won, but they want to continue to justify their existence. So they keep pushing and pushing for more and more concessions far beyond what is healthy for the economic or social well-being of society.
What unions really need to do is enter stand-by mode. Keep collecting nominal dues, but unless there are major issues(which there aren't right now) they should largely be dormant. Only existing to hire legal defense for their members. Unions should only be really active when there is gross injustice. IE: members getting paid well below what their labor is worth, outright abuse of employees, etc... Not lobbying for excessively high minimum wages or shoveling/withholding money to/from politicians
The US may actually have the shittiest labor conditions of any western nation, and that included mid level and professional jobs. I would hate to think what they would be without unions.
From the stories I generally hear about American unions, it very much does feel a case of they're fighting the wrong fight most of the time.
I'm in the UK, though I'm not part of the union (been thinking about it, but broadly speaking, I don't feel I'm kind of earning enough to afford to pay the union fees to protect my job).
It may be the union is one of the 'good ones' but, broadly speaking this is what they're usually involved in, that I'm aware of as a non member at least.
Working out any inflation related payrises, or lack thereof with the payroll department.
Legal/financial advice for members.
Improving the sick absence reporting and recording processes.
Various studies and polls concerning Mental Health awareness of staff.
They've recently had a big success at working out shared Paternity / Maternity leave and procedures, for married couples who work together in the office, as well as I believe other local businesses? I've not needed to know the details, for well, obvious reasons, but lots of people seem happy about it.
Continued work on Pride, BME and 'glass ceiling' issues that remain in the business.
All these seem like 'good' things, both for the business and the staff as a whole. EG shared maternity / paternity leave, for when the mum is the higher earner, she is 'needed' back in the office more than the dad.
It's not the 19th century anymore either. State and Federal labor laws aren't going to magically disappear and kids aren't going to be working 60 hours a week in textile mills if we didn't have labor unions.
The laws won't magically disappear, politicians bought by corporations will repeal them. No gains are safe while your enemy still has power.
d-usa wrote: The US may actually have the shittiest labor conditions of any western nation, and that included mid level and professional jobs. I would hate to think what they would be without unions.
Less than 7% of the private sector workforce is unionized and has steadily declined for decades. Unions have had a very minimal impact on the private in our lifetime. Unionization is legal in all 50 states but an increasing portion of the workforce chooses not to organize and we still have made consistent advancement with labor protections.
d-usa wrote: The US may actually have the shittiest labor conditions of any western nation, and that included mid level and professional jobs. I would hate to think what they would be without unions.
Less than 7% of the private sector workforce is unionized and has steadily declined for decades...
Odd that you would use a smaller subsection of union employees to make that point. What possible reason could you have for excluding public sector employees (35%), which then averages out to 11%?
It's not the 19th century anymore either. State and Federal labor laws aren't going to magically disappear and kids aren't going to be working 60 hours a week in textile mills if we didn't have labor unions.
The laws won't magically disappear, politicians bought by corporations will repeal them. No gains are safe while your enemy still has power.
Unions have never been weaker and corporate politics contributions have never been higher and yet we keep adding more labor laws that benefit employees. Employees will always outnumber employers so as long as we have a democratic system of elections politicians aren't going to attack the workforce whose votes they need to stay in power.
d-usa wrote: The US may actually have the shittiest labor conditions of any western nation, and that included mid level and professional jobs. I would hate to think what they would be without unions.
Less than 7% of the private sector workforce is unionized and has steadily declined for decades...
Odd that you would use a smaller subsection of union employees to make that point. What possible reason could you have for excluding public sector employees (35%), which then averages out to 11%?
I don't think it's odd at all. For the vast majority of the US less than 5% of the total workforce in the state is unionized per the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. There is a small number of states with an above average percentage of the workforce unionized so the situation for most workers is a labor force whose unionization is more in line with the private sector average than the overall percentage.
https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2016/union-membership-in-the-united-states/pdf/union-membership-in-the-united-states.pdf
Yeah, I'm not disputing those numbers. I'm wondering why you're trying to show that unions are in decline, and instead of saying unions only make up 11% of the workplace, you specifically only mention private sector union employees, which allows you to nearly halve that number down to 7%.
I'm assuming there is a rationale besides intellectual dishonesty here. Why split them like that?
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I'm not disputing those numbers. I'm wondering why you're trying to show that unions are in decline, and instead of saying unions only make up 11% of the workplace, you specifically only mention private sector union employees, which allows you to nearly halve that number down to 7%.
I'm assuming there is a rationale besides intellectual dishonesty here. Why split them like that?
It's been my experience that Public sector unions are almost always split off from private sector unions in discussions of the matter, so it seems very odd to me to see them combined (as you do). That's a simple matter of experience, your may, of course, vary.
As for the reason for doing so consistently it seems there is a very obvious reason: only private sector unions are subject to market forces.
Further, there are genuinely different issues at play with even the propriety of public sector unions at all. I'm partial to the point FDR made on the matter;
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management."
Roosevelt didn’t stop there.
"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations," he wrote.
When Walker claimed FDR said "the government is the people," he had Roosevelt’s next line in mind.
"The employer," Roosevelt’s letter added, "is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."
I contest that worker protections are stronger than ever. 'At will' employment states have been growing in number. Average worker compensation compared to average executive compensation has rapidly been dwindling.
d-usa wrote: The US may actually have the shittiest labor conditions of any western nation, and that included mid level and professional jobs. I would hate to think what they would be without unions.
Wow this wins the award for "Hyperboliest Evaaaaaaa"
Every other developed western nation is shocked when they find out how gakky working conditions are in the US, and how stunningly little rights and protections workers have.
Edit: we are pretty off topic from cops killing people though...
Prestor Jon wrote: Unions have never been weaker and corporate politics contributions have never been higher and yet we keep adding more labor laws that benefit employees. Employees will always outnumber employers so as long as we have a democratic system of elections politicians aren't going to attack the workforce whose votes they need to stay in power.
More and more people are employed in the inherently and intentionally unstable "gig economy" and on that last point all I'll say is that there are already huge swathes of the working population that finds itself without political representation and that currently one of the two political parties is doing all it can to make sure millions are thrown off health insurance and the other is vehemently opposed to embracing universal healthcare despite it being the most broadly popular idea in modern politics. Your view of things was maybe accurate twenty or forty years ago, at best.
Prestor Jon wrote: Unions have never been weaker and corporate politics contributions have never been higher and yet we keep adding more labor laws that benefit employees. Employees will always outnumber employers so as long as we have a democratic system of elections politicians aren't going to attack the workforce whose votes they need to stay in power.
Your claim relies on the assumption that workers are naturally unified and look after each other. As if the cubicle dweller will see that the kitchen hand is being exploited and vote to make sure he is cared for, and in turn the kitchen hand will rally behind the fruit picker. Obviously that's bunk, people vote for their own immediate interests, or some limited understanding of their own best interests. That reality is why democracy alone didn't produce decent working conditions we now take for granted. That needed individual workplaces and industries undertaking collective action to demand something better.
I mean, I'm by no means a fan of the reality of unions as we see them today, but the idea that democracy alone will keep everyone in decent jobs is just not true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Buzzsaw wrote: As for the reason for doing so consistently it seems there is a very obvious reason: only private sector unions are subject to market forces.
Nope. There is a large cross over between public and private sector employment. Police not so much, but everything else from teachers to management can choose between private and public sector work. That's a market.
There's also a big issue with your underlying assumption that wages and conditions are set by market forces alone. That simplistic idea hasn't held with labour market research. Of course demand and supply play a major role, but there's a lot of other factors at play. Because what a person is paid ties very closely to their status, and so value judgements also play a large role in the wages offered. This has led to fascinating markets where despite acute labour shortages pay remained flat, or other situations where high sector unemployment didn't lower employee pay. It also explains why CEO remuneration started exploding from 1970 onwards - it wasn't as though people suddenly demanded more CEOs, or the supply of CEOs dried up - what changed was society's acceptance of outsized pay packets.
It's also an explanation of sticky wages, if you squint hard enough.
This is also part and parcel of why unions exist. If it was as simple as people being underpaid then workers leaving the sector would by itself be enough to shift wages to a reasonable level. But union action, when it works, is largely about demanding respect, demanding an increase in status. Pay increases are tied to that.
Prestor Jon wrote: Unions have never been weaker and corporate politics contributions have never been higher and yet we keep adding more labor laws that benefit employees. Employees will always outnumber employers so as long as we have a democratic system of elections politicians aren't going to attack the workforce whose votes they need to stay in power.
Your claim relies on the assumption that workers are naturally unified and look after each other. As if the cubicle dweller will see that the kitchen hand is being exploited and vote to make sure he is cared for, and in turn the kitchen hand will rally behind the fruit picker. Obviously that's bunk, people vote for their own immediate interests, or some limited understanding of their own best interests. That reality is why democracy alone didn't produce decent working conditions we now take for granted. That needed individual workplaces and industries undertaking collective action to demand something better.
I mean, I'm by no means a fan of the reality of unions as we see them today, but the idea that democracy alone will keep everyone in decent jobs is just not true.
I never said everybody was going to have decent jobs. I was disputing Rosebuddy's claim that politicians will vote away labor laws because politicians' votes will be bought by corporations. Corporations can pour money into political campaigns but candidates still need voters to show up and cast votes and the majority of those voters will be members of the workforce and be employed so politicians can't afford to screw over the people that they rely on for votes. There is only so much influence that corporations can buy because corporations can contribute money but not votes.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I'm not disputing those numbers. I'm wondering why you're trying to show that unions are in decline, and instead of saying unions only make up 11% of the workplace, you specifically only mention private sector union employees, which allows you to nearly halve that number down to 7%.
I'm assuming there is a rationale besides intellectual dishonesty here. Why split them like that?
I just explained it. I specifically called out the private sector because that's where the majority (86%) of us work, its the largest portion of the workforce. The majority of states have less than 10% of the total workforce unionized. The majority of the people working the majority of the jobs don't experience being part of a workforce with a unionization percentage in double digits. The state I live in and the 4 states that border it all have less than 10% unionization so everyone living in the southeast participates in a workforce that is unionized at a rate much more in line with the private sector percentage not the total national percentage. Unless you're a public sector worker in a state with a high unionization rate in that sector, a minority in a minority you participate in a workforce with a unionization rate in line with the national private sector average not the total national average.
To bring this back on topic, unions have a very narrow focus, taking care of union members. That's why you don't see a positive reaction to the new descalation training announced in Minnesota and why you don't see a bigger push for more training for cops from their union, because the more rigorous the qualifications get the harder it is for people to pass them and it leads to fewer people becoming cops or remaining on the force and the union wants as many cops as possible on the job and paying dues. Having a smaller, better trained police force would be better for everyone except the union's coffers. So we get minimal training (seriously any gun owning citizen, cop or otherwise, should shoot much more often than the typical annual PD requirements because those requirements are woefully inadequate for developing functional proficiency) and cops like Yanez going out and augmenting that training with private courses run by tacticool egomaniacs that preach to cops that they need to have a plan to kill everyone they meet. They show highlight reels of the statistically rare cop murders at traffic stops to scare cops into believing that they need this tactical training course because the next citizen they pull over might try to murder them and they need to be able to react in a fraction of a second and kill that person first. That's the kind of fear mongering bs that contributed to Yanez being panicky, shooting Castile and costing himself his job and his employer a $10 million civil suit settlement.
Typically, these types of training seminars are paid for by the Department and not the Unions. So, it is the "employer" who is fostering the bad training. I just wanted to point that out.
This step by Minnesota is to move Departments away from the "Bulletproof Mind" style of training adn back onto de-escalation as the focus for Departments.
Going to watch a documentary tonight called "Officer Involved" its about the director taking two years out of his life to interview various LEO's who have had to pull the trigger to lethal effect. Looks very interesting.
I think it'll be offtopic to discuss/review it in this post, but I've been thinking of doing a general US Police thread for some time, as it always seems to be interesting discussion.
So I watched the documentary, and found it to be excellent.
There are some great moments in this documentary, like when a officer who killed a man meets the dead guys wife on a random traffic checkpoint, years after the event. Most of the shootings seem to be legit and non controversial, aside from one that caused some riots in Cleveland in 2001. One cop was interviewed about his OIS years ago and towards the end of filming was shot at in his cruiser and had to respond with deadly force, once again. fething insane.
The commentary from the Psychologist and other mental health professionals are probably my favorite parts, overall.
Here's a tidbit, some of which isn't in the doc :
edit: Adam Jensen's insights and commentary feature less in actual doc than they do in this brief snippet.
Its pretty officer centric, is my only criticism. Would love a follow up that focuses on the civilian side a bit more. One that examines the political side of it would be nice too.
Prestor Jon wrote: I never said everybody was going to have decent jobs. I was disputing Rosebuddy's claim that politicians will vote away labor laws because politicians' votes will be bought by corporations. Corporations can pour money into political campaigns but candidates still need voters to show up and cast votes and the majority of those voters will be members of the workforce and be employed so politicians can't afford to screw over the people that they rely on for votes. There is only so much influence that corporations can buy because corporations can contribute money but not votes.
Sure, and I get what you're saying, and I agree up to a point.
But what I'm saying is that there is also a hard limit on how much workers will do to actually vote for the benefits of workers. Consider, for instance, if government passed a law that reduced safety requirements in kitchens. Now, kitchen hands might know those laws will result in a lot more injuries and vote appropriately, but most voters will hear two sides argue that issue and be unable to determine for certain if the laws really are going to be more dangerous, and truth is they're unlikely to care enough about such a small issue.
Remember, when railroad strikers won the right to reduced working hours, in what would eventually become the 9-5, Monday to Friday working week, they weren't fighting for universal working rights. They were just trying to get some decent laws in their own workplace.
Prestor Jon wrote: I never said everybody was going to have decent jobs. I was disputing Rosebuddy's claim that politicians will vote away labor laws because politicians' votes will be bought by corporations. Corporations can pour money into political campaigns but candidates still need voters to show up and cast votes and the majority of those voters will be members of the workforce and be employed so politicians can't afford to screw over the people that they rely on for votes. There is only so much influence that corporations can buy because corporations can contribute money but not votes.
Sure, and I get what you're saying, and I agree up to a point.
But what I'm saying is that there is also a hard limit on how much workers will do to actually vote for the benefits of workers. Consider, for instance, if government passed a law that reduced safety requirements in kitchens. Now, kitchen hands might know those laws will result in a lot more injuries and vote appropriately, but most voters will hear two sides argue that issue and be unable to determine for certain if the laws really are going to be more dangerous, and truth is they're unlikely to care enough about such a small issue.
Remember, when railroad strikers won the right to reduced working hours, in what would eventually become the 9-5, Monday to Friday working week, they weren't fighting for universal working rights. They were just trying to get some decent laws in their own workplace.
Yes there are limitations but specific pro industry/anti worker legislation in niche industries is also going to be a very limited source of campaign contributions that would incentivize passing the legislation at all. Sure most people aren't going to get outraged and vote a politician out of office because he/she voted in favor of a law that diminished the earning power and worker rights of restaurant dishwashers but likewise there won't be much influence on politicians to pass such laws in the first place. The biggest impetus to change is the inertia of the status quo. Why isn't Federal minimum wage set to grow with inflation? Why does it take so long to get Congress to increase Federal minimum wage? Because with low unemployment, a growing economy and stock market it's difficult to dig down below the surface and address underlying problems when the newsworthy (if outmoded) indicators are good enough.
Corporate interests can't just write checks and get politicians to do whatever they want. Politicians still need to be able to create a narrative that is appealing enough to the electorate to engender support for legislation. Business can flex their monetary muscle and get govt to protect the status quo, to keep wage growth stalled and labor costs down but they can't buy major setbacks to worker rights because the govt has a vested interest in not upsetting the applecart. History shows us that politicians don't have much trouble in maintaining support from an electorate even when they're not improving their situation but that doesn't mean politicians can get away with actively hurting the electorate. Likewise workers will always face major obstacles to making major changes, their need to organize large groups of people together in a common cause that are willing to take substantial risks to make any gains and the combination of the govt's investment in the status quo coupled with the monetary power of business. So we get progress to the point where things are better than they were but are still far from being as good as they could be. That equilibrium isn't going to be changed anytime soon.
Sure most people aren't going to get outraged and vote a politician out of office because he/she voted in favor of a law that diminished the earning power and worker rights of restaurant dishwashers but likewise there won't be much influence on politicians to pass such laws in the first place.
I disagree. Passing the law gets the politician a check from the restaurant owner's association which he can use to fund his campaign/buy advertising to get more votes. And it isn't even noticed by most people as most people don't care about dishwashers. There's even the narrative that they only are dishwashers because they are lazy so deserve the lower wages.
Sure most people aren't going to get outraged and vote a politician out of office because he/she voted in favor of a law that diminished the earning power and worker rights of restaurant dishwashers but likewise there won't be much influence on politicians to pass such laws in the first place.
I disagree. Passing the law gets the politician a check from the restaurant owner's association which he can use to fund his campaign/buy advertising to get more votes. And it isn't even noticed by most people as most people don't care about dishwashers. There's even the narrative that they only are dishwashers because they are lazy so deserve the lower wages.
It's still dependent on the issue being big enough to elicit an amount of money donated to a campaign that outweighs any negative pushback from voters or political opposition. Politicians can't afford to just do anything for a dollar, they are vulnerable to unhappy voters and opposition attacks. Issues that are small enough to fly under the radar are unlikely to generate enough donation money to guarantee legislative support. Is making dishwashing a job that's exempt from minimum wage laws important enough to the restaurant association that their members are willing to spend enough money on enough politicians to guarantee it's passage?
Look at coal jobs, there's no saving the coal industry and there's no massive amount of money from coal companies that was donated to the Trump campaign but he still made a lot of pandering promises about preserving coal jobs. Why? To win the votes of workers in the coal industry because votes are still the metric by which elections are won.
If corporations and rich people could just buy whatever legislation they wanted we'd be living in a very different world but thankfully that's not how it works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: When you lose your job for doing your job...usually lawsuit follows.
He's not being fired.
The Minnesota police officer acquitted in last year's fatal shooting of black motorist Philando Castile will receive $48,500 as part of a separation agreement with the Minneapolis suburb of St. Anthony.
Jeronimo Yanez, who is leaving the St. Anthony Police Department under the agreement announced Monday, also will be paid for up to 600 hours of unused compensatory time. The details were released to The Associated Press through a public information request.
It's a mutually agreed upon settlement. The criminal trial yielded a not guilty verdict and the civil suit was resolved with a $10 million settlement so there was likely no admission of wrong doing as part of that settlement, I haven't seen or heard of any internal review finding Yanez guilty of misconduct or negligence so there weren't any grounds for firing him. However, when you do something that becomes a massive PR nightmare and costs your employer a $10 million settlement it makes you unwanted by your employer so you there's impetus on both sides to part ways. It's not surprising at all that the town bought out Yanez, if anything it's surprising that it didn't cost more.
Sure most people aren't going to get outraged and vote a politician out of office because he/she voted in favor of a law that diminished the earning power and worker rights of restaurant dishwashers but likewise there won't be much influence on politicians to pass such laws in the first place.
I disagree. Passing the law gets the politician a check from the restaurant owner's association which he can use to fund his campaign/buy advertising to get more votes. And it isn't even noticed by most people as most people don't care about dishwashers. There's even the narrative that they only are dishwashers because they are lazy so deserve the lower wages.
It's still dependent on the issue being big enough to elicit an amount of money donated to a campaign that outweighs any negative pushback from voters or political opposition. Politicians can't afford to just do anything for a dollar, they are vulnerable to unhappy voters and opposition attacks. Issues that are small enough to fly under the radar are unlikely to generate enough donation money to guarantee legislative support. Is making dishwashing a job that's exempt from minimum wage laws important enough to the restaurant association that their members are willing to spend enough money on enough politicians to guarantee it's passage?
Look at coal jobs, there's no saving the coal industry and there's no massive amount of money from coal companies that was donated to the Trump campaign but he still made a lot of pandering promises about preserving coal jobs. Why? To win the votes of workers in the coal industry because votes are still the metric by which elections are won.
If corporations and rich people could just buy whatever legislation they wanted we'd be living in a very different world but thankfully that's not how it works.
It's been progressively getting worse for workers. This is partially due to wealth distribution going more and more towards the rich and them being able to buy propaganda to convince people.
And in the dishwashing law...The pushback on it is 0, but they get something for it, thus it's a shoe in.
40 year old white female yoga instructor, shot by police while talking to an officer.
The woman, wearing pajamas, approached the driver’s side door and was talking to the driver, the newspaper reported. The officer in the passenger seat then shot Damond through the driver’s side door, the three people told the newspaper.
If true, this means the passenger side officer discharged their weapon in the vehicle, across their partner...
Neither of the responding officers had turned on their body cameras, and police have not yet said why one of the officers shot her. The squad car camera did not capture the incident, either.
40 year old white female yoga instructor, shot by police while talking to an officer.
The woman, wearing pajamas, approached the driver’s side door and was talking to the driver, the newspaper reported. The officer in the passenger seat then shot Damond through the driver’s side door, the three people told the newspaper.
If true, this means the passenger side officer discharged their weapon in the vehicle, across their partner...
Neither of the responding officers had turned on their body cameras, and police have not yet said why one of the officers shot her. The squad car camera did not capture the incident, either.
40 year old white female yoga instructor, shot by police while talking to an officer.
The woman, wearing pajamas, approached the driver’s side door and was talking to the driver, the newspaper reported. The officer in the passenger seat then shot Damond through the driver’s side door, the three people told the newspaper.
If true, this means the passenger side officer discharged their weapon in the vehicle, across their partner...
Neither of the responding officers had turned on their body cameras, and police have not yet said why one of the officers shot her. The squad car camera did not capture the incident, either.
Peregrine once said that if there is a weapon discharge or serious injury on the beat and your camera is off, you should at a minimum be fired. As time has gone on, I'm increasingly agreeing with him. \
The cop in question messed up big time though: he shot an attractive, blonde white woman. He's got the usual paid leave for now but I expect some actual consequences this time.
Shooters identity revealed: Mohamed Noor, 2 year veteran, first Somali to join that particular department.
UPDATE (12:45 p.m.): The officer who shot and killed Damond has been identified as Mohamed Noor. Noor joined the force in March 2015 and became the first Somali officer to patrol southwest Minneapolis.
Ouze wrote:Peregrine once said that if there is a weapon discharge or serious injury on the beat and your camera is off, you should at a minimum be fired. As time has gone on, I'm increasingly agreeing with him. \
The cop in question messed up big time though: he shot an attractive, blonde white woman. He's got the usual paid leave for now but I expect some actual consequences this time.
nels1031 wrote:Shooters identity revealed: Mohamed Noor, 2 year veteran, first Somali to join that particular department.
UPDATE (12:45 p.m.): The officer who shot and killed Damond has been identified as Mohamed Noor. Noor joined the force in March 2015 and became the first Somali officer to patrol southwest Minneapolis.
Shocking and weird case.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:I wonder if how fatally he'll resist arrest.
Yup...I'm now expecting to hear that he somehow arrested himself, and was fatally shot while arresting himself.
I know it's all racial and stuff, but I fully expect the black cop shooting a white woman to be the only cop convicted of murder. And then this case will be pointed to as the example that the blue line doesn't exist because somebody got convicted. That might just be my lack of faith in our justice system talking though.
Prestor Jon wrote: Yes there are limitations but specific pro industry/anti worker legislation in niche industries is also going to be a very limited source of campaign contributions that would incentivize passing the legislation at all.
Sure, but the point is you move from one to the next, to the next. Reduce protections in one industry, then the next, and so on.
And in case it's gotten lost over the conversation, I'm not saying this is anyone's secret plan or any conspiracy nonsense like that. I'm just pointing out that expecting voters as a group to vote to protect each individual collection of workers is impractical at best. There are big reasons that collective action came in to being long after elected representation - in and of itself elections were not enough to establish or protect worker's rights.
Sure most people aren't going to get outraged and vote a politician out of office because he/she voted in favor of a law that diminished the earning power and worker rights of restaurant dishwashers but likewise there won't be much influence on politicians to pass such laws in the first place.
There are always industry specific special interests working to get reforms of all kinds through government. I'm working with a half dozen odd groups right now that are way more niches within industries than kitchen hands within the restaurant industry.
The biggest impetus to change is the inertia of the status quo. Why isn't Federal minimum wage set to grow with inflation? Why does it take so long to get Congress to increase Federal minimum wage? Because with low unemployment, a growing economy and stock market it's difficult to dig down below the surface and address underlying problems when the newsworthy (if outmoded) indicators are good enough.
Federal minimum wage isn't set to grow with inflation because the minimum rate of pay that is unlikely to negatively impact unemployment isn't fixed and rising with a single inflation measure. Consider the stagflation of the late 70s, there you have high inflation coupled with skittish supply uncertainty, boosting minimum wage by inflation would have killed jobs. But then consider the big easy of the 90s, low inflation but tight demand for labour, there you could have increased minimum wage by much more than inflation with no negative impact on employment.
Minimum wage should have an assumed yearly increase, sure, but it shouldn't be mechanical. It needs to be based on the recommendation of a technical committee. But given the partisan nature of minimum wage in the US that's not viable right now.
Corporate interests can't just write checks and get politicians to do whatever they want. Politicians still need to be able to create a narrative that is appealing enough to the electorate to engender support for legislation. Business can flex their monetary muscle and get govt to protect the status quo, to keep wage growth stalled and labor costs down but they can't buy major setbacks to worker rights because the govt has a vested interest in not upsetting the applecart.
It isn't as simple as being purely about money. Nothing is that crude. Consider for instance the Koch brothers. Their influence doesn't come from cutting cheques straight to politicians campaign's. That stuff helps, but it's only a small part of what they do. Most of the money goes to thinktanks located either in DC or in universities around the country. Those thinktanks aren't even literally contracted to produce certain work, its more than funding is only given to groups that have likeminded attitudes to the Koch brothers. This means the attitudes of the Koch brothers might be a small minority within each academic field, but in terms of research output and media presence these groups get an outsized presence. Over a couple of generations that flows through, not just in to academia but also out in to the greater population.
The deregulation drives of the 80s, 90s & 00s weren't unloaded on the country through purchased votes in congress. That deregulation happened with the consent and support of the majority of technical experts on the left and right, and with a population who certainly wasn't uniformly opposed. We can talk all day about whether deregulation was good or bad (and come to the eventual conclusion that some was needed, some was good, some was problematic and a bit was really stupid), but it happened in large part through the work of many industry sectors working to push money towards people arguing deregulation was needed for futher productivity gains.
Money doesn't just shift votes, it also shifts opinion.
History shows us that politicians don't have much trouble in maintaining support from an electorate even when they're not improving their situation but that doesn't mean politicians can get away with actively hurting the electorate. Likewise workers will always face major obstacles to making major changes, their need to organize large groups of people together in a common cause that are willing to take substantial risks to make any gains and the combination of the govt's investment in the status quo coupled with the monetary power of business. So we get progress to the point where things are better than they were but are still far from being as good as they could be. That equilibrium isn't going to be changed anytime soon.
The equilibrium changes if the message that unions, and by extension collective action by workers, are relics of the past.
And again, I don't want to defend unions as they are today. Corruption and unprincipled actions by unions themselves are a major cause of the current situation. But the equilibrium you describe above comes about in part by the presence of collective action, or at least the threat of such.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: The cop in question messed up big time though: he shot an attractive, blonde white woman. He's got the usual paid leave for now but I expect some actual consequences this time.
He shot an attractive, blonde, Australian white woman.
As a result the story is getting quite a lot of coverage here.
If corporations and rich people could just buy whatever legislation they wanted we'd be living in a very different world but thankfully that's not how it works.
Funny, they did a study on what groups really rules in America by (amongst other things) looking at how likely a policy is to be implemented depending on what group in society favours it. The result will shock you! (probably not)
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
This is like the basic plot to Shots Fired. White cops kill black people for little to no reason and get off scot free repeatedly. Black cop kills white person, will probably go down for it. Although I do want him to be convicted it would be a hollow victory because it would demonstrate that black people in American are truely unequal in the eyes of the law.
To be fair - it is a women. It's unimaginable to a lot of people that a women could be perceived as a threat. It would be the same situation if the women were black. Except it would be the front page story on every new paper. I hadn't even heard about this story until I read about it on this thread. That's how little coverage this gets.
Xenomancers wrote: To be fair - it is a women. It's unimaginable to a lot of people that a women could be perceived as a threat. It would be the same situation if the women were black. Except it would be the front page story on every new paper. I hadn't even heard about this story until I read about it on this thread. That's how little coverage this gets.
I've seen this story get a lot of coverage online and it's not unimaginable that a woman could be perceived as a threat it's unimaginable that a woman, unarmed and in her pajamas, who had called 911 because she thought she heard/saw a prowler would be perceived as a threat when police arrived and be lethally shot.
Xenomancers wrote:To be fair - it is a women. It's unimaginable to a lot of people that a women could be perceived as a threat. It would be the same situation if the women were black. Except it would be the front page story on every new paper. I hadn't even heard about this story until I read about it on this thread. That's how little coverage this gets.
