Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:
The local stories here stated that the man shot by the Black officer was not compliing with requests from the officer and appeared to be drawing a weapon. Even though he was unarmed, the shooting was justified, since it was a split second, life or death descision.

Like the black guy shot in St. Louis shortly after Ferguson that nobody had a problem with.

In both cases, the officers were correctly justified.

Which is what I was trying to say. Not reported because they were non-stories.

Wanna break that wall of silence? Do something about the police unions. That, of course, would require electing representatives for Union reform.

 cincydooley wrote:
Wanna break that wall of silence? Do something about the police unions. That, of course, would require electing representatives for Union reform.

Think a sense of "Loyalty" towards their fellow LEO's plays a huge part in that "Wall of SIlence"

 Jihadin wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Wanna break that wall of silence? Do something about the police unions. That, of course, would require electing representatives for Union reform.

Think a sense of "Loyalty" towards their fellow LEO's plays a huge part in that "Wall of SIlence"

Sure it does. But the union certainly plays a large role in it.

 cincydooley wrote:
Wanna break that wall of silence? Do something about the police unions. That, of course, would require electing representatives for Union reform.

The problem here is that Republican governors have exempted police unions (who receive strong support from the Right) from just about every major collective bargaining reform targeted at public sector unions, insulating them from any pressure to reform. John Kasich tried to change that and the measure championed was shot down voters.

I know your default setting is "blame the unions!" but the issues with police culture and 'blue wall of silence' are a little deeper than that. But yeah, police unions reforming would be a step in the right direction.

I voted for that one from Kasich. The Ohio educators Union is quite powerful in ohio. They did quite a bit campaigning against him.

My wife gets mailings from them pretty much weekly. Despite leaving the union last year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And fwiw I was a part of the OEA for the first three years i taught. They do very little for young teachers.

Well where else would it be powerful?

Anyhoo, many people claim that the public unions protect teachers and cops against litigation, etc, and that's the primary cause. I'd love to see someone explore the notion of educator/cop malpractice insurance like doctors have to carry instead of relying on a union to "protect" them.

AFAIK, education "malpractice" isn't a thing even in hypothetical. You can't teach wrong, just different. Some methods work better than others.

 cincydooley wrote:
Anyhoo, many people claim that the public unions protect teachers and cops against litigation, etc, and that's the primary cause. I'd love to see someone explore the notion of educator/cop malpractice insurance like doctors have to carry instead of relying on a union to "protect" them.

So then public employees in important and difficult jobs who in many places are already underpaid have another expense? If they made as much money as doctors that might make more sense.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
AFAIK, education "malpractice" isn't a thing even in hypothetical. You can't teach wrong, just different. Some methods work better than others.

Yeah, that's what I was wondering. What would education malpractice be? With police I could see the argument, even if I don't agree with it, but for educators I'm not sure why it would be necessary.

I know it's just Cracked, so take it with a grain of salt, but I found this article to be surprisingly good: http://www.cracked.com/article_21880_6-reasons-beyond-racism-why-cops-keep-killing-people.html

 Hordini wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Anyhoo, many people claim that the public unions protect teachers and cops against litigation, etc, and that's the primary cause. I'd love to see someone explore the notion of educator/cop malpractice insurance like doctors have to carry instead of relying on a union to "protect" them.

So then public employees in important and difficult jobs who in many places are already underpaid have another expense? If they made as much money as doctors that might make more sense.

You mean like they expense they already pay monthly in union fees?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
AFAIK, education "malpractice" isn't a thing even in hypothetical. You can't teach wrong, just different. Some methods work better than others.

Yeah, that's what I was wondering. What would education malpractice be? With police I could see the argument, even if I don't agree with it, but for educators I'm not sure why it would be necessary.

How often are teachers actually sued by parents, in which they would sue the teacher directly rather than the school or the district? Serious question.

And fair enough that police have to pay union dues already - but if they had to purchase malpractice insurance from an insurance company, do you really think it would be the same cost as their union dues? Isn't malpractice insurance extremely expensive for doctors? I would expect it would be extremely expensive for police as well.

 Hordini wrote:
How often are teachers actually sued by parents, in which they would sue the teacher directly rather than the school or the district? Serious question.

My wife, who has won teacher of the year awards in Cincinnati, has had to seek legal counsel twice from her union in 8 years of teaching. Once because she restrained an ED student by, essentially, hugging him, after he'd thrown a chair at her (it was dismissed because they had it in the kids IEP that that type of restraint was justified for those types of outbursts; following it, they modified the IEP to state that teachers would not prevent him from hurting himself at all, and it was signed off on by the parent. How effed is that?), and once because a student claimed she came in the boys restroom and touched him. She teaches 4th grade.

I had to once, during my student teaching no less, when a vindictive student claimed I asked her to remove her sweatshirt so I could stare at her chest. She'd apparently done it before to my assistant principal at the time, too, so they determined she was lying fairly quickly. Scared the gak out of me, though.

I've had at least two other friends (1 male, 1 female) with occurrences similar. The female worked in a high risk, very poor school and apparent the lawsuits were incredibly common there.

Again, it was one of the primary selling points that they pitched when I got my first full time job for joining the union.

I'm not saying it's an everyday thing, but when they use it as a primary selling point--that you'll be afforded the union's counsel if you need it--tells me it's a real enough issue to consider.

And fair enough that police have to pay union dues already - but if they had to purchase malpractice insurance from an insurance company, do you really think it would be the same cost as their union dues? Isn't malpractice insurance extremely expensive for doctors? I would expect it would be extremely expensive for police as well.

Oh, I'm not claiming I have any ideas how it would be done. I know malpractice insurance for doctors is incredibly high. But I think its an interesting notion, and could potentially help with that "blue line" if you weren't tied to another Cop through a union.

So black peaceful protestors breaking curfew get tear gas, arrests and tackled to the ground.

White protestors in the 'nice' part of town get this:
https://mobile.twitter.com/deray/status/594685998719770624

Basically they get benefit of the doubt, multiple warnings, accommodations and arrests as the last resort.

I suppose you could paint this as "rich people" getting privilege, but it still shows the total inequity of how people are treated in Baltimore.

NK......you forgot that Baltimore is of two worlds right?

Edit

Two worlds that consist of
Well Off/Well Paying
to
Not great/job sucks

Something you don't really see when one visit the Inner Harbor

So, Why is the driver charged?
And, does anyone else think thet are only charging just because of the slew of killed blacks by cops as of late?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, Why is the driver charged?
And, does anyone else think thet are only charging just because of the slew of killed blacks by cops as of late?

It certainly does smack of appeasement, but there is some actual evidence in this case. Although I doubt the charges will stick to most of them.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, Why is the driver charged?
And, does anyone else think thet are only charging just because of the slew of killed blacks by cops as of late?

It certainly does smack of appeasement, but there is some actual evidence in this case. Although I doubt the charges will stick to most of them.

I would guess as the actual operator of the vehicle he is the one most responsible for ensuring the passenger is secured (which he didn't do, multiple times), the most responsible for the injuries suffered due to his driving, and the most responsible for the failure to seek medical care for the unconscious and still unsecured person that is still being slammed around the back of the van while he is driving even after he noticed that he is no longer conscious.

Or appeasement, what do I know...

Im just wondering TBH. I havent followed the case at all because I have reached activism overload. I cant care anymore about Riots, Killing or anything. Especially realizing I cant change anything.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im just wondering TBH. I havent followed the case at all because I have reached activism overload. I cant care anymore about Riots, Killing or anything. Especially realizing I cant change anything.

Yeah, it is much easier to walk in and start making claims you know nothing about.

I love it when places set a curfew, makes everybody feel much better knowing that they are 14 and grounded.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
AFAIK, education "malpractice" isn't a thing even in hypothetical. You can't teach wrong, just different. Some methods work better than others.

I would think that an "education malpractice" insurance wouldn't be for poor teaching performance, but rather the other reason we usually hear about teachers....


Which it seems that most teacher's unions are all too happy to throw educators under the bus when it comes to allegations sexual misconduct.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
AFAIK, education "malpractice" isn't a thing even in hypothetical. You can't teach wrong, just different. Some methods work better than others.

I would think that an "education malpractice" insurance wouldn't be for poor teaching performance, but rather the other reason we usually hear about teachers....


Which it seems that most teacher's unions are all too happy to throw educators under the bus when it comes to allegations sexual misconduct.

Are educators really that much more likely to face that kind of situation? I realize that when it does happen, it is often high profile and in the news, but that doesn't necessarily mean it happens more often than in other professions.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Wanna break that wall of silence? Do something about the police unions. That, of course, would require electing representatives for Union reform.

The problem here is that Republican governors have exempted police unions (who receive strong support from the Right) from just about every major collective bargaining reform targeted at public sector unions, insulating them from any pressure to reform. John Kasich tried to change that and the measure championed was shot down voters.

I know your default setting is "blame the unions!" but the issues with police culture and 'blue wall of silence' are a little deeper than that. But yeah, police unions reforming would be a step in the right direction.

Wow, you just blamed unions...on Republicans? Your internet aikido sir, is legendary. Salute!

 Frazzled wrote:

Wow, you just blamed unions...on Republicans? Your internet aikido sir, is legendary. Salute!

Are you disputing the fact that police unions have always received strong support from the Right and have been exempted from just about every Republican-lead attempt for public sector union reform (except the one in Ohio I mentioned)?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Wow, you just blamed unions...on Republicans? Your internet aikido sir, is legendary. Salute!

Are you disputing the fact that police unions have always received strong support from the Right and have been exempted from just about every Republican-lead attempt for public sector union reform (except the one in Ohio I mentioned)?

Please cite the Democratic politicians that have not supported the local police union.

 Frazzled wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Wow, you just blamed unions...on Republicans? Your internet aikido sir, is legendary. Salute!

Are you disputing the fact that police unions have always received strong support from the Right and have been exempted from just about every Republican-lead attempt for public sector union reform (except the one in Ohio I mentioned)?

Please cite the Democratic politicians that have not supported the local police union.

And the Republicans that do so in Baltimore along with those Democrats in Baltimore that don't. Heck go to the state level.

I think you'll find,that city and that state don't have a majority of politicians with Rs over the last few decades.

That isn't what I was saying, so I'm guessing you don't understand the point I was making.

The FOP has a history of supporting Republican politicians, who in turn support them right back. The FOP endorsed Republicans in 2000, 2004, and 2008. They endorsed no one in 2012 because the felt Romney was too "across the board" anti-union. In Ohio, the police union had not endorsed a Democrat since 1988, until their Republican governor backed a public sector union reform bill that didn't exclude them. Do you remember when Governor Walker went after public sector unions in Wisconsin? He exempted both the police and firefighters' union (another public union that has traditionally supported Republicans) from that legislation.

Do Democrats support unions, including the FOP? Perhaps, but the police don't typically support or endorse them in return. So yeah, just about every attempt at public sector union reform in recent memory has been lead by Republicans. Of the legislation that has passed, all of it has exempted the police (and usually the firefighters) unions from any real reform.

 Frazzled wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Wow, you just blamed unions...on Republicans? Your internet aikido sir, is legendary. Salute!

Are you disputing the fact that police unions have always received strong support from the Right and have been exempted from just about every Republican-lead attempt for public sector union reform (except the one in Ohio I mentioned)?

Please cite the Democratic politicians that have not supported the local police union.

Let's say we have five stacks of bricks. They're all about ten bricks high. Let's say that they're labeled 'teaching' 'factory workers' 'hospital workers' 'construction workers' and 'police'.

We then have two people: Demi and Ron.

Demi has generally always supported the construction of these stacks, and pushed for their construction at the time, stating that their existence is helpful to working people. Ron, on the other hand, always argues against the existence of these stacks, stating that they have too much influence.

One day, Ron gets a hammer, and uses it to knock down almost all of the stacks, leaving the one labelled 'police' intact, because he thinks that it's actually a pretty cool tower. All of the stacks are now only one or two bricks high, but police is still ten bricks high, because Ron likes that one.

Who are you going to blame for the relative height of the stacks? Demi or Ron?

Sorry I quit reading when you went into fantasy land.

Again please cite the Democratic politicians that didn't support the local police union. I should restrict that to politicians that held office.