Lets fix the police

[dcar00 14955]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool...but you don't understand the org chart of government.  I agree with you, state and local management of law enforcement has been for shit.  But what you aren't getting to is the fact that it is that way BECAUSE THEIR CONSTITUENTS WANT IT THAT WAY.  Politicians do what loud and powerful constituencies demand that they do, because otherwise, they get tossed out on their ass.

You and I both know that for the last 20-40 years, functionally every state and city official would have been summarily tossed out on their ass next election if they came out with a plan to reform policing and subject cops to greater oversight and discipline.  The problem isn't just the police, it isn't just gov't leadership -- the problem is that they have been operating the way that a loud percentage (and often majority) of voters WANTED them to.  That's a huge point here -- that's why shifting public opinion matters.  I am focused on EXACTLY the right people -- we the people.  We need to demand better, and not accept the same shitty order.  Politicians will respond to that, or find themselves looking for new work.  Cops will respond to that, or find themselves looking for new work.  

I fully understand the org chart of govt.  apparently a lot of the people that run these cities are complete pussies.

[Brisketexan 106889]

Just now, dcar00 said:

I fully understand the org chart of govt.  apparently a lot of the people that run these cities are complete pussies.

Or, they bow to the loud majority that has demanded "LAW AND ORDER!  TOUGH ON CRIME!" for decades.  They are doing what we have wanted them to do.  Blaming politicians for being pussies absolves us of our responsibility, and surrenders our power.

[dcar00 14955]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Or, they bow to the loud majority that has demanded "LAW AND ORDER!  TOUGH ON CRIME!" for decades.  They are doing what we have wanted them to do.  Blaming politicians for being pussies absolves us of our responsibility, and surrenders our power.

arent they they ones that negotiate with the union and review how police are being trained?  If they are letting shitty training and crappy union contracts occur then they are failing to do their jobs.  quit giving them any out whatsoever. they suck

[Captainant 28533]

12 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

arent they they ones that negotiate with the union and review how police are being trained?  If they are letting shitty training and crappy union contracts occur then they are failing to do their jobs.  quit giving them any out whatsoever. they suck

I really like how you've managed to completely disengage the police from any sort of organizational accountability.

Cops killing too many people? The city shouldn't have written the contract to let them get away with killing so many people.

That's some abuser-level thinking, man.

[Brisketexan 106889]

10 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

arent they they ones that negotiate with the union and review how police are being trained?  If they are letting shitty training and crappy union contracts occur then they are failing to do their jobs.  quit giving them any out whatsoever. they suck

Have you ever followed the issue in the past?   Here's how little leverage they've had: if they oppose something the police union wants in their contract, the police union goes on PR blitz and lobbying of legislators how the officials in City X are soft-on-crime pantywaists who want to make you less safe, and want you to be raped and murdered in your home.  And the usual suspects clutch their pearls, demand that the public officials "stand with our brave police," and the fight is over before it began.  

Standing up to anything demanded by cops -- including through their demands in union negotiations -- has been political suicide across the country for decades.

Now, when we have a shift in public sentiment, do I expect them to listen and do things differently?  Hell yes I do.  And I will hold them accountable.

[dcar00 14955]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Have you ever followed the issue in the past?   Here's how little leverage they've had: if they oppose something the police union wants in their contract, the police union goes on PR blitz and lobbying of legislators how the officials in City X are soft-on-crime pantywaists who want to make you less safe, and want you to be raped and murdered in your home.  And the usual suspects clutch their pearls, demand that the public officials "stand with our brave police," and the fight is over before it began.  

Standing up to anything demanded by cops -- including through their demands in union negotiations -- has been political suicide across the country for decades.

Now, when we have a shift in public sentiment, do I expect them to listen and do things differently?  Hell yes I do.  And I will hold them accountable.

how is it political suicide?  lets take Austin for instance.  do you think Adler has any chance of being voted out?  why won't HE take a stand.

Why does it take public sentiment to get Adler to do the right thing?  doesn't he have any principles?

[Brisketexan 106889]

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

how is it political suicide?  lets take Austin for instance.  do you think Adler has any chance of being voted out?  why won't HE take a stand.

Why does it take public sentiment to get Adler to do the right thing?  doesn't he have any principles?

You are talking about TODAY.  The climate is different today than it was even a few months ago, and certainly what it was even a year ago.

And cool, you want politicians to have principles that put them at odds with the majority of the people who put them in office.  A person who ran for mayor on a platform of "reform the police and subject them to strict accountability" would have been crushed before even being elected.  And a person who changed their tune and proposed that during their first term would be gone the next election, without having accomplished anything.

It's amazing to me that you think elected officials are this magically powerful.  It has been third-rail level unpopular to oppose law enforcement on ANYTHING, for decades.  The reason we don't have many local officials who have stood up to cops is the same reason Texas doesn't have many public officials who support a state income tax -- it's a complete career killer.  You won't accomplish ANYTHING on the short time you remain in office, and you sure aren't being re-elected.

Today, that is changing.  That's kind of a big deal.

[dcar00 14955]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You are talking about TODAY.  The climate is different today than it was even a few months ago, and certainly what it was even a year ago.

And cool, you want politicians to have principles that put them at odds with the majority of the people who put them in office.  A person who ran for mayor on a platform of "reform the police and subject them to strict accountability" would have been crushed before even being elected.  And a person who changed their tune and proposed that during their first term would be gone the next election, without having accomplished anything.

It's amazing to me that you think elected officials are this magically powerful.  It has been third-rail level unpopular to oppose law enforcement on ANYTHING, for decades.  The reason we don't have many local officials who have stood up to cops is the same reason Texas doesn't have many public officials who support a state income tax -- it's a complete career killer.  You won't accomplish ANYTHING on the short time you remain in office, and you sure aren't being re-elected.

Today, that is changing.  That's kind of a big deal.

So you think Adler has or even had any chance of being voted out?   I'm sure the majority of the people who voted him in would be happy for him to say no to the police unions, hire a city manager to limit the police and change their training practices and rules without fear of being voted out.  certainly they would be fine if the demilitarized them.  did he just realize that black people are murdered by police at a higher rate than their population and that the police are patrolling minority areas more often and arresting minorities more often?

[Brisketexan 106889]

17 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

So you think Adler has or even had any chance of being voted out?   I'm sure the majority of the people who voted him in would be happy for him to say no to the police unions, hire a city manager to limit the police and change their training practices and rules without fear of being voted out.  certainly they would be fine if the demilitarized them.  did he just realize that black people are murdered by police at a higher rate than their population and that the police are patrolling minority areas more often and arresting minorities more often?

That's not the question.  The question has always been political.

Would taking that stance have been a winner or loser in the eyes of the voters and, equally as important, in the eyes of the Legislature, which has the power to cripple the city?  In Texas, that battle was a guaranteed loser, with really bad consequences, for a long, long time.  Yes, even in -- and regarding the Legislature, ESPECIALLY in -- Austin.  

And of course, even before the events of the past month, police reform was a real issue of discussion and potential action with Austin city government.  It was a milquetoast discussion, because much of our leadership is milquetoast, for which I and many others have long criticized them.

But your absolution of everyone except public officials who have done exactly what the people and the Legislature have demanded of them baffles me.  It really does.  I mean, I'm 100% confident that had the Austin council taken these actions 3 months ago, you'd have shrieked about how they are ignoring the will of the people, doing what people don't want them to do, and we need to toss these bums out immediately.  And you'd have had a LOT of company. 

[dcar00 14955]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

That's not the question.  The question has always been political.

Would taking that stance have been a winner or loser in the eyes of the voters and, equally as important, in the eyes of the Legislature, which has the power to cripple the city?  In Texas, that battle was a guaranteed loser, with really bad consequences, for a long, long time.  Yes, even in -- and regarding the Legislature, ESPECIALLY in -- Austin.  

And of course, even before the events of the past month, police reform was a real issue of discussion and potential action with Austin city government.  It was a milquetoast discussion, because much of our leadership is milquetoast, for which I and many others have long criticized them.

But your absolution of everyone except public officials who have done exactly what the people and the Legislature have demanded of them baffles me.  It really does.  I mean, I'm 100% confident that had the Austin council taken these actions 3 months ago, you'd have shrieked about how they are ignoring the will of the people, doing what people don't want them to do, and we need to toss these bums out immediately.  And you'd have had a LOT of company. 

what?  thats what elections are for. I wouldn't have shrieked for anything.   they aren't going to do whats right, in their minds, because they might get voted out?  they are going to let unions and shitty cops run the joint because they are worried about getting re-elected?  

do you think any of these folks on Austin city council, mayor, etc were voted in because they were stating they would be tough on crime?  what people and legislature have demanded that dirty cops, crappy union deals and shitty training be allowed.

where am I absolving dirty cops?  if they are dirty the police chief should be firing them and if he/she won't then the city manager should fire the police chief.  they wanted the gig.  man up.

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by dcar00

[Brisketexan 106889]

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

what?  thats what elections are for. I wouldn't have shrieked for anything.   they aren't going to do whats right, in their minds, because they might get voted out?  they are going to let unions and shitty cops run the joint because they are worried about getting re-elected?  

Well, it's pretty hard to implement serious and lasting reform if you're tossed out in favor of a crew with an opposing take in 2 years, so yeah, that's a pretty realistic and pragmatic consideration.  If you don't have the backing of the public on an issue, you probably aren't going to get very far with it.

3 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

do you think any of these folks on Austin city council, mayor, etc were voted in because they were stating they would be tough on crime?  what people and legislature have demanded that dirty cops, crappy union deals and shitty training be allowed.

No, the weren't elected because they claimed to be "tough on crime."  But being that Austin has only been single-member district for a short while, yes, being characterized as "soft on crime" was a damned good way to never even get elected.  And who has demanded that everything the police unions want be allowed?  Pretty much everyone aligned with the "law and order" ethos since forever.  Because it's never been about the actual policy -- if the police union demanded a steady supply of popsicles be delivered to all of their cars whenever they wanted, and the city rejected that demand, the union cranks up the PR machine (and goes to its pals in the Legislature) with a loud message of how the city "doesn't support its cops, and would prefer for the criminals to be taken care of while our officers risk their physical health and well-being with no help from the city.  The city council is ANTI-police."  For decades, if the police union wanted it, they could easily characterize that as "pro cop and pro law and order," and any opposition to their demands was easily characterized as "anti cop and soft on crime."  Truth has nothing to fucking do with it.

 

8 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

where am I absolving dirty cops?  if they are dirty the police chief should be firing them and if he/she won't then the city manager should fire the police chief. 

When you absolve all of the cops who see and know they have abusive shitheels in their ranks, yet the at best look the other way and at worst provide them cover, because the thin blue line and all that.  And as for they should be fired, yeah.....they should be.  But per their contracts, when the chief fires a shitty cop, he uses the union-obtained process and standard, which effectively says that a cop can't ever be fired for anything unless he agrees to be fired, and they get reinstated.

A lot of it absolutely comes back to shitty union-negotiated contracts, which cities have long had little leverage to oppose, because to do so was political suicide.  You can't get ANYTHING done if you can't even get elected, or you get tossed out as soon as you start.  What HAS to change is public sentiment and the electorate, so reforms can be real and sustainable.  That's where it all starts.

Now, if after that shift has happened, the city council is a bunch of gutless cowards who won't do what the people are calling for, damned right they should be tossed out.

[BabaYaga 15624]

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

if the police union demanded

 

34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

the union cranks up the PR machine

 

34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

if the police union wanted it,

 

34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

when the chief fires a shitty cop, he uses the union-obtained process

 

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

shitty union-negotiated contracts

So you are on record then of completely and utterly gutting the public sector police unions - which to each of your recurring points, is the singular,  structural impediment that needs to be abolished.  

[hobbes2702 13470]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

 

 

 

 

So you are on record then of completely and utterly gutting the public sector police unions - which to each of your recurring points, is the singular,  structural impediment that needs to be abolished.  

It certainly is not singular. It might be the most important but it is not remotely the single structural impediment, which is basically what brisket is explaining. 

[Brisketexan 106889]

6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

 

 

 

 

So you are on record then of completely and utterly gutting the public sector police unions - which to each of your recurring points, is the singular,  structural impediment that needs to be abolished.  

Yep.  It ain't the ONLY thing, but it's an essential thing.  I don't know if they have to be eliminated entirely.....but that may be the solution.  A public sector public safety workforce should never be able to use union power to conceal the actions of their members, protect dangerous members, etc.  That's a hard NO for me.  If you are performing a job that is inherently tied to public health and safety, you can collectively bargain for your pay, and other directly related terms of employment, but anything related to job performance or misconduct cannot be subject to any special protections.

Police unions are a textbook example of "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered."  Instead of ever accepting even the slightest suggestion that they put the interests of the public first, they overplayed their hands.  And now, hopefully, they are going to see their power gutted, if not taken away entirely.  Tough shit.  They played a hand stupidly, and now the bill comes due.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Brisketexan

[dcar00 14955]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, it's pretty hard to implement serious and lasting reform if you're tossed out in favor of a crew with an opposing take in 2 years, so yeah, that's a pretty realistic and pragmatic consideration.  If you don't have the backing of the public on an issue, you probably aren't going to get very far with it.

No, the weren't elected because they claimed to be "tough on crime."  But being that Austin has only been single-member district for a short while, yes, being characterized as "soft on crime" was a damned good way to never even get elected.  And who has demanded that everything the police unions want be allowed?  Pretty much everyone aligned with the "law and order" ethos since forever.  Because it's never been about the actual policy -- if the police union demanded a steady supply of popsicles be delivered to all of their cars whenever they wanted, and the city rejected that demand, the union cranks up the PR machine (and goes to its pals in the Legislature) with a loud message of how the city "doesn't support its cops, and would prefer for the criminals to be taken care of while our officers risk their physical health and well-being with no help from the city.  The city council is ANTI-police."  For decades, if the police union wanted it, they could easily characterize that as "pro cop and pro law and order," and any opposition to their demands was easily characterized as "anti cop and soft on crime."  Truth has nothing to fucking do with it.

 

When you absolve all of the cops who see and know they have abusive shitheels in their ranks, yet the at best look the other way and at worst provide them cover, because the thin blue line and all that.  And as for they should be fired, yeah.....they should be.  But per their contracts, when the chief fires a shitty cop, he uses the union-obtained process and standard, which effectively says that a cop can't ever be fired for anything unless he agrees to be fired, and they get reinstated.

A lot of it absolutely comes back to shitty union-negotiated contracts, which cities have long had little leverage to oppose, because to do so was political suicide.  You can't get ANYTHING done if you can't even get elected, or you get tossed out as soon as you start.  What HAS to change is public sentiment and the electorate, so reforms can be real and sustainable.  That's where it all starts.

Now, if after that shift has happened, the city council is a bunch of gutless cowards who won't do what the people are calling for, damned right they should be tossed out.

this is a bunch of whining about it is too hard.  Adler has been mayor for what 5 years?  I'm sure most of the city council folks have been around for years and I'm sure none of them respect the police very much.  its already pretty much a non-"LAW AND ORDER" crowd city(to use your term )and liberal city. what are they risking?  man the fuck up and demand the change. cut the contract next time it is up, fire everyone who wants it, hire new people.  quit fucking whining and do it....but then again, maybe they don't want to because they like their cushy little, look how important I am gigs.

[Brisketexan 106889]

8 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

this is a bunch of whining about it is too hard.  Adler has been mayor for what 5 years?  I'm sure most of the city council folks have been around for years and I'm sure none of them respect the police very much.  its already pretty much a non-"LAW AND ORDER" crowd city(to use your term )and liberal city. what are they risking?  man the fuck up and demand the change. cut the contract next time it is up, fire everyone who wants it, hire new people.  quit fucking whining and do it....but then again, maybe they don't want to because they like their cushy little, look how important I am gigs.

If the sit on their hands in the current climate, I'll agree with you completely.  If we look up in a couple of years and are stuck with the same shitty contract and situation, they're cowards and should be replaced.

If you're discussing the past few years, when legislative sessions LITERALLY had a stated agenda of fucking over cities who dared do anything out of line with what the ruling political class wanted (I'm dead serious, legislative leaders said that exact thing), I'm going to have to disagree with your insistence that Austin paint an even bigger target on its back.  That would have been among the dumbest political moves ever made (not that Austin is incapable of such moves, of course).

What I stated above is political reality.  No "too hard" about it -- nope, "functionally impossible" is what it was.  You couldn't win office if CLEAT lobbied against you.  You sure as hell couldn't stay there long enough to pass meaningful long term reform.  And crossing the cops would have put an already fat-target Austin squarely in the sights of a vindictive legislature the past several sessions.  It would have been a bloodbath.  So, on that point, not "too hard," but rather "too self-destructive."  

I do love how everyone except Austin's liberal city government is absolved from any responsibility here.  No, it couldn't POSSIBLY go back to the people being dumbasses who bought into "law and order."  Nope, it's cowardly liberal city council members.  It couldn't POSSIBLY be a legislature that vindictively attacked local control repeatedly wherever it crossed at all with their vision for Texas (which is and always has been LAW AND ORDER).  Nope.  It's all on the city council.  Do you have that little political awareness, or are you doing a bit?

Edited June 15, 2020 by Brisketexan

[dcar00 14955]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

If the sit on their hands in the current climate, I'll agree with you completely.  If we look up in a couple of years and are stuck with the same shitty contract and situation, they're cowards and should be replaced.

If you're discussing the past few years, when legislative sessions LITERALLY had a stated agenda of fucking over cities who dared do anything out of line with what the ruling political class wanted (I'm dead serious, legislative leaders said that exact thing), I'm going to have to disagree with your insistence that Austin paint an even bigger target on its back.  That would have been among the dumbest political moves ever made (not that Austin is incapable of such moves, of course).

What I stated above is political reality.  No "too hard" about it -- nope, "functionally impossible" is what it was.  You couldn't win office if CLEAT lobbied against you.  You sure as hell couldn't stay there long enough to pass meaningful long term reform.  And crossing the cops would have put an already fat-target Austin squarely in the sights of a vindictive legislature the past several sessions.  It would have been a bloodbath.  So, on that point, not "too hard," but rather "too self-destructive."  

I do love how everyone except Austin's liberal city government is absolved from any responsibility here.  No, it couldn't POSSIBLY go back to the people being dumbasses who bought into "law and order."  Nope, it's cowardly liberal city council members.  It couldn't POSSIBLY be a legislature that vindictively attacked local control repeatedly wherever it crossed at all with their vision for Texas (which is and always has been LAW AND ORDER).  Nope.  It's all on the city council.  Do you have that little political awareness, or are you doing a bit?

stand for something(not you but them, unless you take up my offer for a mayoral run). highlight the vindictiveness. quit worrying about being re-elected if it is so damn important to change the culture. at the end of the day it appears they think it is something to give into so they can do other stuff they want.  I know exactly how elective politics works, its not the fucking complicated. unfortunately too many view it as a lifetime job with awesome perks and power  vs. service to a community and fellow man.

[BabaYaga 15624]

15 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  It ain't the ONLY thing, but it's an essential thing.  I don't know if they have to be eliminated entirely.....but that may be the solution.  A public sector public safety workforce should never be able to use union power to conceal the actions of their members, protect dangerous members, etc.  That's a hard NO for me.  If you are performing a job that is inherently tied to public health and safety, you can collectively bargain for your pay, and other directly related terms of employment, but anything related to job performance or misconduct cannot be subject to any special protections.

Police unions are a textbook example of "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered."  Instead of ever accepting even the slightest suggestion that they put the interests of the public first, they overplayed their hands.  And now, hopefully, they are going to see their power gutted, if not taken away entirely.  Tough shit.  They played a hand stupidly, and now the bill comes due.

This seems to be the most easily identifiable, easily quantifiable course of action everyone can get behind - yet I'm not seeing much mention of it, and I fear it's because of political backlash from "taking on the unions".

Unions protect bad apples.  Beyond a myriad of other ideas, first and foremost there is a pressing need to easily identify and remove bad apples, ergo the protections from the unions.  

"DEFUND" is being misconstrued by the media and many others are "no more police".....which is not technically wrong.  Its not "reduce funding", which is not the same as an outright defunding.  Semantics, sure.  But easily manipulated to fit a narrative.

Now, break the unions - that is not something you can warp.  Break their power to protect these bad apples.  Break their power to obfuscate.  It's arguably the single most important structural change that can be quickly made.

[Brisketexan 106889]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

yet I'm not seeing much mention of it,

Really?  I'm seeing it discussed all over.

[Thatguy 9362]

The real issue is John Q Public. We just want to live life in our little bubbles, and not be exposed to the ugliness of the world. So we block it out. Then a large section of us just refuse the police are capable of crime. So we choose to believe them and their excuses. This goes on and on ad nauseam. Being a busy professional, my Facebook page is littered with people who have strong opinions about things they've never experienced at all.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BabaYaga 15624]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Really?  I'm seeing it discussed all over.

Not here, from the media.  Public demands, etc.  From the communities outraged from the treatment.  

[Brisketexan 106889]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Not here, from the media.  Public demands, etc.  From the communities outraged from the treatment.  

There are literally pieces on that topic in the NYT, USA Today.....come on, man.

[BabaYaga 15624]

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There are literally pieces on that topic in the NYT, USA Today.....come on, man.

No, I've read a few not behind paywalls - they are primarily "suggestions" on how to "fix" the same unions that operated with complete impunity for decades.  You yourself railed post after post after post on the same bad actors still operating behind the scenes.  This is that.  Right here. 

With heightened scrutiny, suddenly the unions are contrite and seem willing to help.   But it's the same people.  The same leaders at the top.  Jesus man, these unions need to be completely and utterly overhauled and structurally changed so they are completely and utterly different from what we see today.....yet we are going to see feckless leadership at the state and local level utterly afraid to do what needs to be done.  

[Brisketexan 106889]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

No, I've read a few not behind paywalls - they are primarily "suggestions" on how to "fix" the same unions that operated with complete impunity for decades.  You yourself railed post after post after post on the same bad actors still operating behind the scenes.  This is that.  Right here. 

With heightened scrutiny, suddenly the unions are contrite and seem willing to help.   But it's the same people.  The same leaders at the top.  Jesus man, these unions need to be completely and utterly overhauled and structurally changed so they are completely and utterly different from what we see today.....yet we are going to see feckless leadership at the state and local level utterly afraid to do what needs to be done.  

Huh.  The pieces I've read are professors and other experts chiming in saying exactly what you are, and what I agree with -- rearranging the deck chairs ain't gonna do it.

[BabaYaga 15624]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

rearranging the deck chairs ain't gonna do it.

Yes, pontificating on what could be, leading to what I fear is exactly what we are going to get.  A "fix"....vs a complete overhaul and dismantling.  Take LA.  They are losing $150M.  Ok, great.  What does that mean?  What systemic changes does that engender?  From the surface, it seems like not many.  I think you will get a lot of "soft" changes, like sensitivity-type training, but nothing that fundamentally changes the very heart of the precinct.  Again, I think this will fall on feckless leadership too afraid to tackle the single biggest issue blocking change:  the power of the unions.  

EX.  there are a lot of suggestions for national standards of rights of force, databases for police complaints, lower the standard for federal criminal civil rights prosecutions, etc.  These are all great suggestions, provided there is not a powerful force operating in the background obfuscating and blocking for LEs to keep them off these lists and sweep use of force complaints under the rug.  

Edited June 16, 2020 by BabaYaga

[dcar00 14955]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Yes, pontificating on what could be, leading to what I fear is exactly what we are going to get.  A "fix"....vs a complete overhaul and dismantling.  Take LA.  They are losing $150M.  Ok, great.  What does that mean?  What systemic changes does that engender?  From the surface, it seems like not many.  I think you will get a lot of "soft" changes, like sensitivity-type training, but nothing that fundamentally changes the very heart of the precinct.  Again, I think this will fall on feckless leadership too afraid to tackle the single biggest issue blocking change:  the power of the unions.  

EX.  there are a lot of suggestions for national standards of rights of force, databases for police complaints, lower the standard for federal criminal civil rights prosecutions, etc.  These are all great suggestions, provided there is not a powerful force operating in the background obfuscating and blocking for LEs to keep them off these lists and sweet use of force complaitns under the rug.  

all public sector unions should be abolished.

[Brisketexan 106889]

13 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Yes, pontificating on what could be, leading to what I fear is exactly what we are going to get.  A "fix"....vs a complete overhaul and dismantling.  Take LA.  They are losing $150M.  Ok, great.  What does that mean?  What systemic changes does that engender?  From the surface, it seems like not many.  I think you will get a lot of "soft" changes, like sensitivity-type training, but nothing that fundamentally changes the very heart of the precinct.  Again, I think this will fall on feckless leadership too afraid to tackle the single biggest issue blocking change:  the power of the unions.  

EX.  there are a lot of suggestions for national standards of rights of force, databases for police complaints, lower the standard for federal criminal civil rights prosecutions, etc.  These are all great suggestions, provided there is not a powerful force operating in the background obfuscating and blocking for LEs to keep them off these lists and sweet use of force complaitns under the rug.  

Ultimately, I don't care what the "win" looks like in terms of whether there is still a union or not.  If there is still a union negotiating pay rates etc., I don't much give a shit.  So long as things like discipline, disciplinary history, repercussions for wrongful conduct, the right to terminate, etc., is taken from their hands (and that probably has to happen legislatively), we can get where we need to go.  That is, unions can exist and have power over subjects A, B, and C, but neither the union nor anyone else can alter the standards for X, Y, and Z (all regarding officer conduct, discipline, etc. - matters of public safety, which must be non-negotiable as a matter of law).  

Wanna know something really funny?  Our Texas legislature made a hard push for a law banning anything that even looked like lobbying by a public entity (so, cities wouldn't have even been able to send someone to meet with legislators to talk about how a proposal might impact them).  You know what was NOT covered by that legislation?  Outfits like CLEAT, lobbying on behalf of public employees (cops).

You talk about "lack of courage" and "feckless" leadership and stare down pussy liberals like Austin.  Yet you look right past the conservative legislature, which has steadfastly fought ANYTHING that might come CLOSE to regulating police behavior, for decades.  Shit, look at what the Lege killed just last session in terms of proposals for police oversight. 

Quote

After Sandra Bland's death in a rural Texas jail drew outrage across the nation, two Texas lawmakers filed a comprehensive bill to address racial profiling during traffic stops, ban police from stopping drivers on traffic violations as a pretext to investigate other potential crimes, limit police searches of vehicles, and address other jail and policing reforms.

But by the time the Legislature passed it, most of the sweeping provisions related to policing had been stripped out.

.....

In 2017, the version of the bill that made it into law included jail reforms like diverting inmates with mental health and substance abuse issues into treatment and mandating that independent law enforcement agencies investigate jail deaths.

But the original version also would have required officer training on racial profiling and implicit bias, suspension for any officer found to have repeatedly engaged in racial profiling, and limiting arrests for offenses that at most would end in a fine with no jail time. Those measures stalled the bill’s progress because of opposition from law enforcement groups and lawmakers concerned about unfunded mandates.

It wasn't feckless, it wasn't lack of courage -- it was flat-out intentional.  We aren't going to fix shit in this state in particular until the Legislature gets the fuck out of the way and lets us.  Which they have shown ZERO inclination to do.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Brisketexan

[BabaYaga 15624]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You talk about "lack of courage" and "feckless" leadership and stare down pussy liberals like Austin.  Yet you look right past the conservative legislature, which has steadfastly fought ANYTHING that might come CLOSE to regulating police behavior, for decades.  Shit, look at what the Lege killed just last session in terms of proposals for police oversight.  It wasn't feckless, it wasn't lack of courage -- it was flat-out intentional.  We aren't going to fix shit in this state in particular until the Legislature gets the fuck out of the way and lets us.  Which they have shown ZERO inclination to do.

I made no reference to either side of the isle on this.  The second that this becomes partisan, it dies.  Simple as that.  

[dcar00 14955]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ultimately, I don't care what the "win" looks like in terms of whether there is still a union or not.  If there is still a union negotiating pay rates etc., I don't much give a shit.  So long as things like discipline, disciplinary history, repercussions for wrongful conduct, the right to terminate, etc., is taken from their hands (and that probably has to happen legislatively), we can get where we need to go.  That is, unions can exist and have power over subjects A, B, and C, but neither the union nor anyone else can alter the standards for X, Y, and Z (all regarding officer conduct, discipline, etc. - matters of public safety, which must be non-negotiable as a matter of law).  

Wanna know something really funny?  Our Texas legislature made a hard push for a law banning anything that even looked like lobbying by a public entity (so, cities wouldn't have even been able to send someone to meet with legislators to talk about how a proposal might impact them).  You know what was NOT covered by that legislation?  Outfits like CLEAT, lobbying on behalf of public employees (cops).

You talk about "lack of courage" and "feckless" leadership and stare down pussy liberals like Austin.  Yet you look right past the conservative legislature, which has steadfastly fought ANYTHING that might come CLOSE to regulating police behavior, for decades.  Shit, look at what the Lege killed just last session in terms of proposals for police oversight. 

It wasn't feckless, it wasn't lack of courage -- it was flat-out intentional.  We aren't going to fix shit in this state in particular until the Legislature gets the fuck out of the way and lets us.  Which they have shown ZERO inclination to do.

nope, no unions at all, no trying to thread the needle. public sector unions are a scourge.   it is a complete lack of courage by cities, or maybe could it be just priority.  they do like all their other feel good pet projects.

[Brisketexan 106889]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

I made no reference to either side of the isle on this.  The second that this becomes partisan, it dies.  Simple as that.  

Well, it has BEEN partisan for years now.  Which is why it has been DOA.  The Texas GOP lege in particular wasn't going to pass anything remotely seen as "anti-police" -- and they let CLEAT define whatever they wanted as "anti-police."  Not only that, but the Texas lege has demonstrated that it can and will punish the shit out of any local government entity that defied its wishes.  What do you think would have happened to a city that pushed through the very reforms that you are touting above?  The lege would have ripped out their eyes and skullfucked them.

Yeah, many left-leaning leaders in this state have been cowards (not Whitmire and Coleman, though).....but that's in part because our right-leaning state and state government have been bullies on the issue.  

As constituents, the people we need to lobby are 1) local governments, to have the balls to do what needs to be done with their local PDs, and 2) the legislature, to GTFO the way, and let local governments actually govern their own affairs.  Failure/refusal from either "wing" will make this current effort a failure.

[dcar00 14955]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, it has BEEN partisan for years now.  Which is why it has been DOA.  The Texas GOP lege in particular wasn't going to pass anything remotely seen as "anti-police" -- and they let CLEAT define whatever they wanted as "anti-police."  Not only that, but the Texas lege has demonstrated that it can and will punish the shit out of any local government entity that defied its wishes.  What do you think would have happened to a city that pushed through the very reforms that you are touting above?  The lege would have ripped out their eyes and skullfucked them.

Yeah, many left-leaning leaders in this state have been cowards (not Whitmire and Coleman, though).....but that's in part because our right-leaning state and state government have been bullies on the issue.  

As constituents, the people we need to lobby are 1) local governments, to have the balls to do what needs to be done with their local PDs, and 2) the legislature, to GTFO the way, and let local governments actually govern their own affairs.  Failure/refusal from either "wing" will make this current effort a failure.

if you get rid of public sector unions you can do it.  but no bullshit cherry picking.  all of 'em GONE!

[BabaYaga 15624]

I'm sure this will help

Quote

several on duty NYPD members have passed out after ingesting bleach tainted shakes at a lower Manhattan chain establishment. Emergency services unit is on the scene.

 

[immortal13 4059]

I know what would really chap their asses....change their official color from blue to some kind soft pastel color, or maroon or some shit like that. Fuck their blue line bullshit. 

[Brisketexan 106889]

14 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I'm sure this will help

 

Dude.  Do your homework before you amplify that bullshit.

Quote

The New York Police Department said "no criminality" had occurred after investigating whether three of its officers were poisoned after drinking milkshakes on Monday night at a Shake Shack restaurant in Manhattan.

The officers complained of "not feeling well" before being hospitalized and later released, the NYPD said in a statement to USA TODAY, and Shake Shack said via Twitter that it was "horrified" and working with police.

Chief Rodney Harrison, NYPD's chief of detectives, tweeted early Tuesday: "After a thorough investigation by the NYPD’s Manhattan South investigators, it has been determined that there was no criminality by shake shack’s employees."

 

[Huckleberry 34633]

21 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I'm sure this will help

 

Hahahaha

*reads something that he thinks will get sympathy for cops*

*FLIES TO SURLY AS FAST AS HIS FINGERS AND INTERNET SPEED WILL TAKE HIM TO POST IT BABY!!! WOOHOO!!!*

You missed the step where your ability to recognize a screaming case of confirmation bias in your brain slowed you down long enough to check on the story before making a fool of yourself. Lot of that going around lately, though, so you have company. #bothsides

[BabaYaga 15624]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Dude.  Do your homework before you amplify that bullshit.

 

Do you not find it interesting that it was attributed to RONA cleanings.  Which as we all know is done expressly at night so that it can evaporate off.  Never randomly during the day.  Nor have there been any other cases of attributed sickness, which seems a bit odd considering the volume that goes through a place like that. 

[Brisketexan 106889]

11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Do you not find it interesting that it was attributed to RONA cleanings.  Which as we all know is done expressly at night so that it can evaporate off.  Never randomly during the day.  Nor have there been any other cases of attributed sickness, which seems a bit odd considering the volume that goes through a place like that. 

and.....just like that, you are garbage.  Seriously, there's no point even engaging with you any more.  The fucking COPS THEMSELVES cleared this (you conveniently omitted that from your link).  Sorry, you're just fucking this now, in your effort to be a suck-up/apologist for all things police:

Any credibility you might have had, you just poured gasoline all over and tossed a match.  Hope it was worth it.  You'll be getting no further engagement or discussion from me.  You're not an honest and good-faith communicator, and you're not worth my time, or anyone else's.

[Genco 3056]

So the NYPD is lying about no criminality having occurred after their officers "passed out?"

Edited June 16, 2020 by Genco
See Brisket's post

[dcar00 14955]

Shake Shack making a FOP donation in the near future.

[BabaYaga 15624]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

in your effort to be a suck-up/apologist for all things police:

What the fuck are you babbling about?  I've been pushing completely abolishing the public sector unions, which would, in a single swoop, gut the departments and remove any remaining semblance of influence they have.  It would utterly neuter them in a single sweep and irrevocably change them structurally forever.  Apologist?  Fuck off...

 

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You'll be getting no further engagement or discussion from me.  You're not an honest and good-faith communicator, and you're not worth my time, or anyone else's.

So no more endless, narcissistic bloviating from Brisket?  What will we all do.  Perish the thought we actually fucking question why only three officers get sick when SS turns over hundreds, if not thousands of orders a day.  I'm sure the irony isn't lost on anyone following these threads how often Brisket endlessly calls into question the validity of LE investigations, but now takes this one as gospel.  

[Foosters 18279]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

What the fuck are you babbling about?  I've been pushing completely abolishing the public sector unions, which would, in a single swoop, gut the departments and remove any remaining semblance of influence they have.  It would utterly neuter them in a single sweep and irrevocably change them structurally forever.  Apologist?  Fuck off...

 

So no more endless, narcissistic bloviating from Brisket?  What will we all do.  Perish the thought we actually fucking question why only three officers get sick when SS turns over hundreds, if not thousands of orders a day.  I'm sure the irony isn't lost on anyone following these threads how often Brisket endlessly calls into question the validity of LE investigations, but now takes this one as gospel.  

Take the loss and move on. There will doubtlessly be more pro-cop propaganda for you to post in the near future. 

Chin up, maybe somewhere right now a barista is writing "pig" on a coffee cup.

[Genco 3056]

17 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I'm sure the irony isn't lost on anyone following these threads how often Brisket endlessly calls into question the validity of LE investigations, but now takes this one as gospel.  

I'm questioning the validity of the officers' complaints in the first place. It gave the FOP an opportunity to bring out the old playbook, drama queen for a few minutes and reinforce the war on police narrative. 

[BabaYaga 15624]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

Take the loss and move on. There will doubtlessly be more pro-cop propaganda for you to post in the near future. 

Chin up, maybe somewhere right now a barista is writing "pig" on a coffee cup.

LOL

Quote

ShakeShack has responded after it was alleged that a member of their Cannon Street team handed a receipt to a police officer for their food that contained the “all cops are b*stards” (ACAB) acronym on it, next to where ‘guest details’ are displayed. 

The officer had entered the fast-food restaurant to pick up some food during a meal break. 

However, once the officer was handed the receipt, they noticed that it had the ‘ACAB’ acronym next to the ‘guest’ information. 

This is rich.  When I was younger I worked with a guy who told me a story about how he almost got fired.

The last table walked in 5 mins to close, he told me, he was in charge of the section they sat in and he also had tea cleaning duties assigned to him. He had already started breaking down the station to go home and they all ordered teas. He kept the bleach in there on purpose, and brought the tea with bleach out to them.

I don't know if the same motivation existed but I've heard this story before many, many times.  

The fact that so many are so adamant that in NO WAY could be purposeful (ie., plausible deniability) is laughable - falling back on LE investigations being gospel here, yet completely irrelevant and worthless when citing arrest and use of force incidents, etc.  If more people come forward with complaints of being sick, then there you have it - but if they do not.  You have the question the coincidence of the entire matter.  

[hobbes2702 13470]

9 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

LOL

This is rich.  When I was younger I worked with a guy who told me a story about how he almost got fired.

The last table walked in 5 mins to close, he told me, he was in charge of the section they sat in and he also had tea cleaning duties assigned to him. He had already started breaking down the station to go home and they all ordered teas. He kept the bleach in there on purpose, and brought the tea with bleach out to them.

I don't know if the same motivation existed but I've heard this story before many, many times.  

The fact that so many are so adamant that in NO WAY could be purposeful (ie., plausible deniability) is laughable - falling back on LE investigations being gospel here, yet completely irrelevant and worthless when citing arrest and use of force incidents, etc.  If more people come forward with complaints of being sick, then there you have it - but if they do not.  You have the question the coincidence of the entire matter.  

[GRHorn 105]

I’m about 30 minutes in here. I heard Jocko a few times before. He’s an intense dude. Anyway, had some great ideas for how to address police force issues. For those that don’t know, he’s a former Navy Seal Commander 
 

1- defund the police is the exact opposite of what they need. But it’s not more cops, it’s more extensive training. He suggests every fifth day being set aside for it. Basically a bunch simulations running through all the different situations they may encounter, how to handle different types of citizens. A lot of reps. Like they do in the military. Not to militarize them, but so that when they’re in the field and encounter someone combative they are able to de escalate and neutralize in a more calm fashion. If you’re training is limited and someone lays their hands on you, people usually panic and then decision making suffers.

2- “community outreach”- my air quotes, but he likens it to counterinsurgency efforts.  You can’t just roll through town in your armored car with windows up and have people in community respect you or want to work with you. There need to be greater efforts to get to know citizens and vice versa.  Humanizes people more.  People on both sides have dehumanized each other to an extent and we see the result there.

3- continuous psych assessments- like on tours of duty, people burn out at different rates as cops.  It’s a stressful occupation and if you’re more on top of their mental health many of these incidents could be avoided.

anyway, enjoy.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-joe-rogan-experience/id360084272?i=1000478248532
 

 

 

 

[Iceman 2978]

On 6/15/2020 at 1:30 PM, Brisketexan said:

Or, they bow to the loud majority that has demanded "LAW AND ORDER!  TOUGH ON CRIME!" for decades.  They are doing what we have wanted them to do.  Blaming politicians for being pussies absolves us of our responsibility, and surrenders our power.

Being tough on crime =/= killing someone subdued in handcuffs

 

If the goal of equality and justice are ever achieved( pipe dream, I know)  I still favor being tough as fuck on offenders with regard to sentencing.  I'm talking crimes against another human, pedos,  crime with a gun, etc, etc.

 

Chasing potheads and so forth is not being tough on crime.  It's working a stat sheet.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Iceman

[Brisketexan 106889]

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

Being tough on crime =/= killing someone subdued in handcuffs

Ummm, do you even "he just should have obeyed all their commands!" bro?  There's a huge chunk of our population for which all uses of force are surely justified, because hey, if they weren't bad guys doing bad stuff, why did they even have an encounter with the cops?  That's been the dominant cultural view for decades.

It seems like it's changing....but I'll wait and see.

[Iceman 2978]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummm, do you even "he just should have obeyed all their commands!" bro?  There's a huge chunk of our population for which all uses of force are surely justified, because hey, if they weren't bad guys doing bad stuff, why did they even have an encounter with the cops?  That's been the dominant cultural view for decades.

It seems like it's changing....but I'll wait and see.

I'm about 100% we do not disagree on this.

I was just suggesting that beating the fuck out of a suspect isn't "being tough on crime."

[Bone3421 716]

Posted in other thread but it looks like no one here wanted to let others know that Colorado was first state to end qualified immunity.....

[workswithseed 2204]

Good stuff here, I didn't even notice how long it was. For a TL;DW he tells his story with officers in the past, and how groups will remember the shitty things done to one person of the group.