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.

 Frazzled wrote:
they never did catch the zodiac.

But this was obviously just a false flag op to distract us from who we all know is the real zodiac killer.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
they never did catch the zodiac.

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...


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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

Maybe not so much...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/devonte-shipman-jaywalking-ticket-viral-video_us_5952722fe4b0da2c731eb16d

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sacramento-officer-video-punch-jaywalker-20170412-story.html

Seems to be a few of those 'this guy clearly did something wrong, but the prosecution overcharged' verdicts being handed out lately.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
they never did catch the zodiac.

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?'

The charges filed may have fit the crime (personally I think they did), but the jurors did not feel the evidence fit the charges.

 CptJake wrote:
The charges filed may have fit the crime (personally I think they did), but the jurors did not feel the evidence fit the charges.

Which is why we need to stop having civilian jury trials for this garbage.

Cops want to be held to a different standard? Sure. Let's make them deal with a full on tribunal.

Do you think you or anyone serving in the US armed forces would have gotten to skate on charges like these, with proof like what we had?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The charges filed may have fit the crime (personally I think they did), but the jurors did not feel the evidence fit the charges.

Which is why we need to stop having civilian jury trials for this garbage.

Cops want to be held to a different standard? Sure. Let's make them deal with a full on tribunal.

Do you think you or anyone serving in the US armed forces would have gotten to skate on charges like these, with proof like what we had?

Tribunal of who? fellow cops? feth that.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The charges filed may have fit the crime (personally I think they did), but the jurors did not feel the evidence fit the charges.

Which is why we need to stop having civilian jury trials for this garbage.

Cops want to be held to a different standard? Sure. Let's make them deal with a full on tribunal.

Do you think you or anyone serving in the US armed forces would have gotten to skate on charges like these, with proof like what we had?

Tribunal of who? fellow cops? feth that.

The urban chapter of Lambda Lambda Lambda.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
they never did catch the zodiac.

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.

Hard to believe but it has been one year since the shooting happened.

Gov. Dayton announced a new 12 Million dollar police training program focused on "De-escalation" names after Philandro Castile.

Police union representatives protested that the program should have been named after a fallen officer. Talk about tone deaf.

They just don't get it. And there's another part of the problem right there. A police union.

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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.

It might be due to how you argued your point.

Unions exist to give a collective voice to workers and to put their bargaining power on par with the employers.

 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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 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.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 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...

 Easy E wrote:

 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:

 Easy E wrote:

 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.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 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 :

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 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).