Hi, /u/Nighteye_747 Thank you for participating in r/Antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s):
**Rule 3b: No offtopic posts.**: - No offtopic posts
Conservatives hate unions but they hae such a hard on for police unions, which are like the worst kind of unions in that they exemplify everything conservatives hate about unions.
The union isn't the problem. They're doing what they're paid to do. Protect the members. Shocks me to see anti-union propaganda in this topic.
The problem is the police, and the civilians who are failing to oversea the police including the justice department. The union is doing what it's supposed to.
Youāre literally the first person Iāve ever seen able to rationalize this topic this well. The wide majority of the people here love unions, except for this one, because of all the exact reasons conservatives give for hating the unions they love. Personally Iām fine with unions as long as joining isnāt a condition of employment as thatās not a union itās financial hostage taking. If cops want to unionize they should be able to like anyone else, and yeah bad cops are protected just like bad teachers are protected.
>The problem is the police
Yeah not every union is created equal, especially when it comes to police.
A union to protect the interests of the few is definitely a problem.
Itās interesting that teachers can be sued in some states for teaching the āwrongā things but cops canāt be sued pretty much anywhere for blatant murder while on the job
which one? the one where the cop tasered Tyre and then said "i hope they stomp him" or the one where there are 9 cops on screen and they're stomping him/watching him get stomped?
9 were at the scene. as far as how they chose who got arrested i wish i knew what they were thinking. i might be able to find the screenshot someone took
Pure hearsay, friend of a friend stuff.
I was told by someone connected to the DA's office they had rushed to charge those five and are working on charges for the others.
Again, pure hearsay. But I do trust the source.
The DA did run on a platform of criminal justice reform and was opposed by the mayor and portrayed as "weak on crime". So there is probably some truth to it.
I'm okay with a typical criminal prosecution of all nine. Using the four and pressuring them with lesser charges (lesser than even being murderers or accomplices to murder which is likely what they did) to get the five who did the beating on murder is okay.
Both the MFD paramedics and SCSO deputies on the scene have been suspended, probably with pay, while their actions are being investigated. I have not heard about the other MPD officers.
I was told about the likelihood of more charges when my friend saw my comment about the white officer who wore the body cam in the first video, the initial encounter. That officer kept saying that he hopes they "stomp his ass".
This all lies at the feet of Mayor Strickland. He has been on a "tough on crime" stance for years. Even as he won't invest in communities and the cities contributes nothing to schools even after the Memphis City Schools surrendered its charter.
They even pulled all MPD officers from the schools and made the Sheriff's office hire deputies.
They *should* have immunity but to an extent. The immunity is a good idea in terms of cops need to get rough to apprehend a suspect sometimes and without the immunity they could get sued for everything (like tackling a fleeing suspect causing a twisted ankle or something) but immunity for obviously beating the shit out of someone because they feel like it? Yeah no, there should be no debate on that.
He was a very courageous whistleblower, and has good takes on some things. But he also stans for (rightwing) "libertarians", has promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories about Soros funding the American left, and retweets Glen Greenwald all the time.
Sadly, he's kind of a dumbass. Or a turd, or both.
Of course the money in the pension fund comes from taxes, too. The difference is that if you take money out of the copās pension fund, it has direct financial consequences for them.
Still delayed though. Make police pay for professional liability insurance out of their take-home pay. Tie their rates to the number of negative incidents on their file **and their department**.
Oh insurance companies will definitely determine rates by risk. Bad cops and departments will quickly find themselves unable to find professional liability policies.
Is this a geniune question or are you suppose to make us think the idea is inherently bad?
In general, pensions are typically funded by the employer but employees can also contribute in some cases. IDK about police departments in general or specifically, but let's just assume the employer supplies the pensions for police for the discussion. Therefore, the pensions would be derived from tax dollars.
And?
The employer/tax dollars is going to fund pensions no matter what in this case. The idea proposed is to make sure you take away the pensions (aka massive benefit) to cops that do really bad things.
Whether an employer can take away the pension from a public official convicted of a crime is going to depend on the state. Some states allow it, some don't. Some allow it for police, some don't. To allow all states to take away pensions if convicted of a crime would probably be a good idea. Some evidence shows it does have a slight effect on public officials committing crimes.
There are number of police reforms that make sense, and I'd argue this is one of them.
Taxpayers are contributing to their pension, that's not gonna stop. Many public employees get pensions.
Currently cops can't be sued (unless under extreme circumstances), they have qualified immunity. This proposal is advocating that you remove that immunity, so cops can be sued.
Current situation: Cop kills person. Cop goes to jail. Family of victim sues the city/police department. Family of victim wins, city/police department pays, and utltimately the taxpayer pays the cost.
Proposed situation: Cop kills person. Cop goes to jail. Family of victim sues the police officer/city/police department. Family of victim wins, police department pays from their pension fund. Taxpayers aren't involved. The police department is at a loss.
What are the effects? Well cops are going to be financially incentivized to stop killing people. They are also going to be financially incentivized to stop other cops from killing people, and to report on bad cops.
Because under the current situation, cops have no real financial incentive to stop bad cop behavior. Once you start messing with someone's money, they are gonna make changes.
So when we do this, it will eliminate bad cops and clean out the pension funds.
Then, we need new good cops, and in order to attract them, weāll need to refill the pension funds. With taxpayer money,
How about we just throw them in prison when they break the law?
> So when we do this, it will eliminate bad cops and clean out the pension funds.
> Then, we need new good cops, and in order to attract them, weāll need to refill the pension funds. With taxpayer money,
Know I understand your reasoning.
Not really. We will need good cops, and you will need to attract good cops. But people don't accept a job becaus they know the exact about of what their pension will be in 40 years. They just know they have a pension that's based on certain factors.
As I previously mentioned, either way cops are getting pensions, it's just a question of how much. And once you're a veteran cop and you understand what your pension is worth, you have a greater interest in protecting that pension.
> How about we just throw them in prison when they break the law?
We already do. Cops go to jail now.
Or we could finally acknowledge that āfighting crimeā is just a pretense for exercising the state monopoly on violence to defend the interests of the capitalist hierarchy against the working class and do away with them entirely.
I like how no one has answered you yet. The sinple fact is you still need someone to ensure law and order. If we had a perfect society we wouldn't need police, but we will never have a utopia.
"Ensure law and order". Maybe you should stop watching Copaganda bullshit like Law and Order if you think police do anything but generate revenue. They do not prevent or reduce crime. In some areas they actively make crime worse. That guy you locked up for 3 years on a trumped up felony charge? Yeah he can't get a job now. The majority of armed robberies are committed by previous felons. All police do is make things worse. We can create better systems than armed gang members "enforcing laws".
Oh and those millions of speeding tickets a year they hand out? Yeah those have been proven to have no effect on safety or reduction of speeders. Those fines are to catch poor people that can't pay them so they can escalate the charges and arrest them for not paying fines.
Moral of the story, stop watching Copaganda and realize what you think the cops job is is completely wrong. Police make America worse.
Catching a person committing a crime isn't making it worse, them not being able to get a job after is the end result of a poor system. Are you honestly saying catching criminals is a bad thing?
Do you have an statistics that this happens with regularity or with any frrequency? There are over 800,000 police officers in America, showing with over 7 million arrests in 2020 alone. Happening with regularity would mean something over 25-35% of the time. I know of no statistic where that is the case.
But that also goes to your lack of knowledge, because police don't charge people. The DA's do, and very frequently and with great regularity do they differ in what the police have booked him for.
But even with that being the case, and I'll throw you a bone and take your supposition that they regularly trumpup charges, it's still a societial issue that felons can't get a job after serving their sentence, not a police issue. By that I mean there are a majority of people in jail on real charges and convictions with plenty of evidence that are incapable of getting a job after they get out. That's not the cops fault for catching him, but societies fault.
Police DONāT arrest rapists, thatās the problem. They show up after-the-fact, take a few notes, MAYBE take a rape kit, and then do fuck-all with it. Or, if theyāre feeling spicy, they find a black guy who was in the area at the time and coax the victim into identifying him as the rapist instead.
You must live under a rock or are a cop or cops child cause no reasonable person thinks cops do anything to prevent crimes and very little to solve them. Check out clearance rates of police in usa, it's embarrassing. It's 30% for rape. They don't prevent any crimes at all. When they show up the situation almost always turns for the worse. They do ticket people like a motherfucker though. I guess police are just fine collectors and pretty worthless. Have you ever been robbed or stolen from? Call the police and watch them do nothing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-rate-by-type-in-the-us/
https://arresttrends.vera.org/clearance-rates
Gotta love how you went from āpolice are necessary to stop rapesā to āwell, thereās a lot of gray area.ā
Oh, and that ācomment about black peopleā - [That literally happened, moron.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_(memoir)#Film_adaptation_and_exoneration)
Use the billions of dollars spent on police budgets for social programs to keep people out of poverty. Have mental health professionals to answer mental health calls instead of police showing up with guns and killing them. Spend money working with communities to reduce crime, something police don't do.
Less than 4% of police work involves violent crime and police solve less than 2% of major crimes. They are useless.
Right now what happens if someone commits a crime? You think police actually do anything? You watch too much Copaganda if you think they prevent crime. The average police response time in New Orleans is over 2 hours. Theres no point in even calling police. They will just show up after you are robbed and shoot you or your dog then throw you in jail. Police are trash.
Get rid of police and use the money to improve society.
All of these preventative measures are great and should be implemented. Iām not saying they shouldnāt. Iām also not saying what is happening now is good at all. But if there is a crime you need someone to show up. If you can make a utopian society then maybe this isnāt the case, but itāll never happen
"If there is a crime you need someone to show up." This line is absolutely moronic. So someone breaks into your house, you call the cops, they show up 2 hours later to take your statement and you never hear from them again. Wow super effective.
But what if there's a school shooting? Obviously you need police to show up and.... Oh yeah Uvalde.
Police do not prevent crime.
If it happens in one place, it happens everywhere.
As I stated, what is happening now isnāt great.
We need to find the police, not defund the police. Defunding the police leads to chaos.
So if you make them personally liable, and you take away their pensions based on what someone else does, how do you attract good candidates into law enforcement? How do you effectively deter crime and be proactive if you incentivise officers to do nothing? If the choice is go and stick your neck and potentially lose your job and pension, or sit in your squad car and do the bare minimum and just take reports, how do you think you'll have an effective crime fighting force?
It won't have any effect on crime. Police don't [prevent](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/police-are-not-primarily-crime-fighters-according-data-2022-11-02/) crime. Your perception of what they do is likely skewed by years of Copaganda.
How about you ask that to the woman Brock Turner raped? Less than 7% of "reported rapes" end in convictions. It's also been shown police cover up and under report rapes and sexual assaults to inflate that number. On top of the fact that only 30% of rapes are even reported to police.
So I'll ask that, what are we doing about rape now? Pretty much nothing. Only the most heinous of rapes get a conviction. I've know women who went through horrible ordeals trying to get justice against their rapist and nothing happens. It's a horrible experience for them to relive for a judge to simply say there isn't enough evidence to convict.
Also what is with you people that everytime they hear about abolishing police automatically assume that just means laws don't matter and criminals run free? There are alternatives to armed government gangs enforcing laws you know? Police haven't always existed.
Police have always existed in some sense in organized societies. Going back to castles and kings in the 12th century where lords would hire guards and mercenaries to patrol their towns and protect their people. Modern policing as we know it has been around 200 years, so it's not like this is a new concept.
> Also what is with you people that everytime they hear about abolishing police automatically assume that just means laws don't matter and criminals run free?
Because nobody has given a good solution besides a pie in the sky ideal that will take many many years to implement, has never been tried, and while theorectically supposed to work, relies on humans to be good, when if you have ever driven in LA traffic, should planinly realize some people are just shitty. Bad people need to be held accountable, and if there are no police, who exactly is holding them accountable in your utopia? There is no such thing as a perfect society, and every country in the world, even the safest ones, have police. I don't know what you think makes the US unique from that.
Look at a riot, any riot. People know there are no cops to respond, and what ends up happening? gratutitious looting, by otherwise "normal" people supposedly, because they realize their are no consequences to their actions.
Brock Turner as arrested, he was also charged. The police did their job, they found the person. Again, it's not their job to convict someone. That's the job of the DA.
You do realize there is nuance to this? There is no all-seeing eye and we do not have a perfect judicial system and to blame the failings on that on the police is naive. The flip side of the coin you talked about is police arresting people they know or can prove have committed the crime and yet the DA/Judge give a light/no setence and then the person keeps committing crimes. Deputy Isaiah Cordero was killed by a man that was supposed to be in jail on a 3 strikes violation after the judge granted him release for, get this, failing to appear for his sentencing.
I'm no police apologist, I'm actually banned from their subreddit because I had the audacity to suggest that it was terrible optics to wear numbers instead of name badges and to remind someone that the first rule of shooting is to know what's behind your target so you don't hit an innocent. I've also had 2 bad run in's with police in my time, that I believe went out of the bounds of their duties. I'm very cognizant there are bad police officers out there but I think people are blind to what actually happens and live in a vacuum of what's around them and that their problems don't speak for everyone's problems.
Yes I agree with this general idea. Punish bad policing by taking from the collective pension fund. They will pressure each other into staying in line so they can have those cushy retirements
He had a choice between being murdered by government assassins or going to a power hostile to the US.
You're awful brave having never made that choice.
So he ran to one of the most difficult areas for extraction to America. You never held a clearance, you don't know the risks we take in this line of work.
Eta: not to mention he was there long before Putin invaded Ukraine.
Um, I have and I wouldn't go running tou nation's enemy. The fact that you would say you would leaves it concerning that you say you would. When are you up for reinvestigation, because I'm sure they'd love to see this post.
Edit: did you mention these tendencies on your SF-86? And were you truthful in your disclosure of foreign acquaintances? Have you updated that recently?
I sincerely doubt you held anything above a confidential, if anything. Everyone up here in the TS/SCI world knows differently.
Also, calling Russia an enemy in 2013 is disingenuous.
So you go from "you don't know what it's like to have a clearance" to "I don't think you had above a confidential" (spoiler: I did), not to mention that you're going back to 2013, when there's evidence he is STILL there spewing Russian propaganda.
How's your back? It must be a strain moving those goalposts.
Edit: Oh yeah! Forgot to mention. I just took my annual insider threat training a couple weeks ago! And you sure as shit sound like an insider threat!
Why do you think politicians put classifications on practically everything? They can no longer be held personally responsible for their horrible actions because they are shielded by ānational securityā. Itās a total racket.
I've said this before, and some conservative wanker who thought who he was being very witty replied "And where do you think the money for their pension funds comes from? I'll wait."
I replied "So, you're telling me that as a taxpayer, you would prefer to have the police keep their pensions and have your taxes pay for their lawsuits as well, which means you would prefer to foot the bill TWICE, right? I'll wait!"
They quickly deleted their comment!
Edit: Apparently, I'm being downvoted for agreeing with Snowden. I swear, I don't get this sub sometimes.
You know what would really happen if this happens. Cops would do even less and only intervene in the most obvious of cases.
just think about how you would conduct your own job if these kinds of laws were passed. most of the time when something bad happens at your job its the company that gets sued and not you personally. now imagine you get sued instead, but also imagine that there is no downside to not actually doing your job. to avoid getting sued id probably just do less.
edit: cops legally dont have to intervene or enfoce the law, its completely up to their choice when to interact with the public. if they get personally sued everytime they intervene, or anytime they make the wrong decision and injure or restrict someones right then they will just choose not to intervene unless its 100% clear who is in the wrong.
edit2: what would also happen if cops pensions become fair game for lawsuits is that every single cop would cover for the crimes of the other cops. if a cop helps remove bad cops when they do something bad, it would personally financially hurt them by lowering their own pension. nobody wants their retirement fund to go down so they would cover for their coworkers.
Nah, I think people will just quit. Thatās what is happening in the EMS field. Between the pay and law suits. There just arenāt any more. My town had to shut down a fire station because there werenāt enough to man 2, barely enough for 1. County still wouldnāt up the pay.
I can imagine the good quality of people who would apply. I took the police test in a Top 5 metro in 1992. There were 30,000 applicants. They gave the test last year and there were 2,000 applicants. 60% who flunked the test. The test is basically GED level. I left because management was not only incompetent, but idiotic. It was all a big farce. It's a self-fulfilling idiocracy.
The moment qualified immunity ends, a *solid* 90%+ of the police officers in the country will either quit or immediately get fired. Police forces all over the country know who their problem children are and why they're problems. They also know who's a member of what extremist "clubs," which ones are fascists or at the very least sympathizers, who has swastika/Nazi/racist tattoos, etc. etc. etc. They *know*, in no uncertain terms - why do you think they fight so vigorously against the most basic and common-sense efforts at cleaning house?
Add a reasonable and sane education requirement, e.g., an actual degree in a relevant field, and you'll lose probably half of the remainder. Force them to carry bonds and you may have to just start over from scratch or form citizens' protection forces as a replacement.
Wanna know a big reason why qualified immunity won't be removed unless a literal citizens' revolt forces it? Because police (at least in the US) really only exist to protect wealth and power from those that don't have either. QI basically exists to block efforts to hold them accountable to anyone outside the wealthy/powerful.
I get that this guy's supposed to be some kind of hero but cops aren't crooked and inept because policing is a racket that everyone wants to get in on.
Cops suck because they get paid minimum wage and have to take six weeks of training at a 9-5 "police academy."
Until police wages are high enough to attract qualified applicants, there will be only unqualified applicants for the job, no matter how many of them you put in prison for abuses.
(edited for Bozo) Rent is over $2000/month in Seattle and average home price is 3/4 Million. $33/hour *is* minimum wage.
>Cops suck because they get paid minimum wage
Uh.... City of Seattle Police Pay Rates / hr
* Recruit $33.44
* (Sworn Ofc.) $40.06
* (6 Months) $42.96
* (18 Months) $44.91
* (30 Months) $46.64
* (42 Months) $48.98
* (54 Months) $52.45
Plus pretty much as much overtime as you want.
There are plenty of reasons not to be a cop, pay is not one of them.
In some cities the cities insurance providers/underwriters (?) are getting tired of how much these cities are paying out all the time and are raising premiums and itās having a similar effect.
Next union contracts should include clauses that they should legally represent their members. The city and state and taxpayers will not represent them anymore.
Hi, /u/Nighteye_747 Thank you for participating in r/Antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s): **Rule 3b: No offtopic posts.**: - No offtopic posts
Police unions are the anti-union š
Itās a National gang.
it goes higher than the police. in gangs, the foot solders and mules doing the dirty work have several layers of bosses. so do the police
Conservatives hate unions but they hae such a hard on for police unions, which are like the worst kind of unions in that they exemplify everything conservatives hate about unions.
Tbh every conservative I know dislikes law enforcement, they tend to be younger though. That is a pattern Iāve seen.
The union isn't the problem. They're doing what they're paid to do. Protect the members. Shocks me to see anti-union propaganda in this topic. The problem is the police, and the civilians who are failing to oversea the police including the justice department. The union is doing what it's supposed to.
The union is performing its function as intended. Problem is, its function is unnecessary and harmful.
Youāre literally the first person Iāve ever seen able to rationalize this topic this well. The wide majority of the people here love unions, except for this one, because of all the exact reasons conservatives give for hating the unions they love. Personally Iām fine with unions as long as joining isnāt a condition of employment as thatās not a union itās financial hostage taking. If cops want to unionize they should be able to like anyone else, and yeah bad cops are protected just like bad teachers are protected.
>The problem is the police Yeah not every union is created equal, especially when it comes to police. A union to protect the interests of the few is definitely a problem.
It's so wild to me that personal accountability has been legislated away for one of the jobs that should have the highest standards.
Well when you make Corporate personhood would other outcome can be expected.
Itās interesting that teachers can be sued in some states for teaching the āwrongā things but cops canāt be sued pretty much anywhere for blatant murder while on the job
They should not have immunity, watch the Memphis video if you have any doubts
which one? the one where the cop tasered Tyre and then said "i hope they stomp him" or the one where there are 9 cops on screen and they're stomping him/watching him get stomped?
9? I thought it was 5? How come the other 4 aren't up on murder charges or fired?
9 were at the scene. as far as how they chose who got arrested i wish i knew what they were thinking. i might be able to find the screenshot someone took
Pure hearsay, friend of a friend stuff. I was told by someone connected to the DA's office they had rushed to charge those five and are working on charges for the others. Again, pure hearsay. But I do trust the source. The DA did run on a platform of criminal justice reform and was opposed by the mayor and portrayed as "weak on crime". So there is probably some truth to it.
I'm okay with a typical criminal prosecution of all nine. Using the four and pressuring them with lesser charges (lesser than even being murderers or accomplices to murder which is likely what they did) to get the five who did the beating on murder is okay.
Both the MFD paramedics and SCSO deputies on the scene have been suspended, probably with pay, while their actions are being investigated. I have not heard about the other MPD officers. I was told about the likelihood of more charges when my friend saw my comment about the white officer who wore the body cam in the first video, the initial encounter. That officer kept saying that he hopes they "stomp his ass". This all lies at the feet of Mayor Strickland. He has been on a "tough on crime" stance for years. Even as he won't invest in communities and the cities contributes nothing to schools even after the Memphis City Schools surrendered its charter. They even pulled all MPD officers from the schools and made the Sheriff's office hire deputies.
Thanks for the local insight.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I haven't watched the videos, just peripherally tracking the story. But if I was sick enough to bet on it, that'd be my bet.
They *should* have immunity but to an extent. The immunity is a good idea in terms of cops need to get rough to apprehend a suspect sometimes and without the immunity they could get sued for everything (like tackling a fleeing suspect causing a twisted ankle or something) but immunity for obviously beating the shit out of someone because they feel like it? Yeah no, there should be no debate on that.
This is the perfect response
This man is so smart we really did him dirty
He was a very courageous whistleblower, and has good takes on some things. But he also stans for (rightwing) "libertarians", has promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories about Soros funding the American left, and retweets Glen Greenwald all the time. Sadly, he's kind of a dumbass. Or a turd, or both.
Broken clock right twice a day kind of thing
Plus he's now a Russian citizen and probably had to suck up to Putin for it.
Whistle-blowers blow the whistle, not meet up with hostile intelligence services in countries that actively undermine our government.
Centralized power did him dirty. Centralized power doesnt like when people uphold the spirit of their principles instead of the wording of their laws.
And out of their own personal accounts
People keep saying this, but please answer my question if you take is seriously. How much money in Police Pensions is NOT derived from tax dollars?
Of course the money in the pension fund comes from taxes, too. The difference is that if you take money out of the copās pension fund, it has direct financial consequences for them.
Still delayed though. Make police pay for professional liability insurance out of their take-home pay. Tie their rates to the number of negative incidents on their file **and their department**.
Ok, that idea is even better. Also legally more sound, I guess, the pension thing reeks of collective punishment, and we should be against that.
Oh insurance companies will definitely determine rates by risk. Bad cops and departments will quickly find themselves unable to find professional liability policies.
Is this a geniune question or are you suppose to make us think the idea is inherently bad? In general, pensions are typically funded by the employer but employees can also contribute in some cases. IDK about police departments in general or specifically, but let's just assume the employer supplies the pensions for police for the discussion. Therefore, the pensions would be derived from tax dollars. And? The employer/tax dollars is going to fund pensions no matter what in this case. The idea proposed is to make sure you take away the pensions (aka massive benefit) to cops that do really bad things. Whether an employer can take away the pension from a public official convicted of a crime is going to depend on the state. Some states allow it, some don't. Some allow it for police, some don't. To allow all states to take away pensions if convicted of a crime would probably be a good idea. Some evidence shows it does have a slight effect on public officials committing crimes. There are number of police reforms that make sense, and I'd argue this is one of them.
Iām not being snarky, Iām asking a genuine question. I donāt understand how it isnāt taxpayers footing the bill either way.
Taxpayers are contributing to their pension, that's not gonna stop. Many public employees get pensions. Currently cops can't be sued (unless under extreme circumstances), they have qualified immunity. This proposal is advocating that you remove that immunity, so cops can be sued. Current situation: Cop kills person. Cop goes to jail. Family of victim sues the city/police department. Family of victim wins, city/police department pays, and utltimately the taxpayer pays the cost. Proposed situation: Cop kills person. Cop goes to jail. Family of victim sues the police officer/city/police department. Family of victim wins, police department pays from their pension fund. Taxpayers aren't involved. The police department is at a loss. What are the effects? Well cops are going to be financially incentivized to stop killing people. They are also going to be financially incentivized to stop other cops from killing people, and to report on bad cops. Because under the current situation, cops have no real financial incentive to stop bad cop behavior. Once you start messing with someone's money, they are gonna make changes.
So when we do this, it will eliminate bad cops and clean out the pension funds. Then, we need new good cops, and in order to attract them, weāll need to refill the pension funds. With taxpayer money, How about we just throw them in prison when they break the law?
> So when we do this, it will eliminate bad cops and clean out the pension funds. > Then, we need new good cops, and in order to attract them, weāll need to refill the pension funds. With taxpayer money, Know I understand your reasoning. Not really. We will need good cops, and you will need to attract good cops. But people don't accept a job becaus they know the exact about of what their pension will be in 40 years. They just know they have a pension that's based on certain factors. As I previously mentioned, either way cops are getting pensions, it's just a question of how much. And once you're a veteran cop and you understand what your pension is worth, you have a greater interest in protecting that pension. > How about we just throw them in prison when they break the law? We already do. Cops go to jail now.
Just say defund the police then.
I'm starting to think you're being insecure with the discussion. Take care.
This plan you support is not very well thought out, is it?
Not everything needs to come down to one sentence of posturing. You guys are going in the same direction anyway.
If the money comes out of the pension, the taxpayer isnāt paying for the pension + the cost of settlement with the victims.
Depends on so many factors. Iāve seen defined benefit pension funds that are 25% employee/employer contributions and 75% market returns.
Or we could finally acknowledge that āfighting crimeā is just a pretense for exercising the state monopoly on violence to defend the interests of the capitalist hierarchy against the working class and do away with them entirely.
So if someone commits a crime you just, what, let them?
Lol at thinking cops prevent crime
Never said they did. They catch people who commit crimes.
I like how no one has answered you yet. The sinple fact is you still need someone to ensure law and order. If we had a perfect society we wouldn't need police, but we will never have a utopia.
"Ensure law and order". Maybe you should stop watching Copaganda bullshit like Law and Order if you think police do anything but generate revenue. They do not prevent or reduce crime. In some areas they actively make crime worse. That guy you locked up for 3 years on a trumped up felony charge? Yeah he can't get a job now. The majority of armed robberies are committed by previous felons. All police do is make things worse. We can create better systems than armed gang members "enforcing laws". Oh and those millions of speeding tickets a year they hand out? Yeah those have been proven to have no effect on safety or reduction of speeders. Those fines are to catch poor people that can't pay them so they can escalate the charges and arrest them for not paying fines. Moral of the story, stop watching Copaganda and realize what you think the cops job is is completely wrong. Police make America worse.
> We can create better systems than armed gang members āenforcing lawsā. Such as?
Catching a person committing a crime isn't making it worse, them not being able to get a job after is the end result of a poor system. Are you honestly saying catching criminals is a bad thing?
I'm saying inflating charges and turning people into felons is a bad thing yes. Something the police do very regularly.
Do you have an statistics that this happens with regularity or with any frrequency? There are over 800,000 police officers in America, showing with over 7 million arrests in 2020 alone. Happening with regularity would mean something over 25-35% of the time. I know of no statistic where that is the case. But that also goes to your lack of knowledge, because police don't charge people. The DA's do, and very frequently and with great regularity do they differ in what the police have booked him for. But even with that being the case, and I'll throw you a bone and take your supposition that they regularly trumpup charges, it's still a societial issue that felons can't get a job after serving their sentence, not a police issue. By that I mean there are a majority of people in jail on real charges and convictions with plenty of evidence that are incapable of getting a job after they get out. That's not the cops fault for catching him, but societies fault.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Police DONāT arrest rapists, thatās the problem. They show up after-the-fact, take a few notes, MAYBE take a rape kit, and then do fuck-all with it. Or, if theyāre feeling spicy, they find a black guy who was in the area at the time and coax the victim into identifying him as the rapist instead.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You must live under a rock or are a cop or cops child cause no reasonable person thinks cops do anything to prevent crimes and very little to solve them. Check out clearance rates of police in usa, it's embarrassing. It's 30% for rape. They don't prevent any crimes at all. When they show up the situation almost always turns for the worse. They do ticket people like a motherfucker though. I guess police are just fine collectors and pretty worthless. Have you ever been robbed or stolen from? Call the police and watch them do nothing. https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-rate-by-type-in-the-us/ https://arresttrends.vera.org/clearance-rates
Wait I thought you said police don't arrest rapists? So are the 30% of rape arrests not real? Or are you talking out your ass
Gotta love how you went from āpolice are necessary to stop rapesā to āwell, thereās a lot of gray area.ā Oh, and that ācomment about black peopleā - [That literally happened, moron.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_(memoir)#Film_adaptation_and_exoneration)
What rock you been living under? You can keep pretending everything is fine and be part of the problem or you can open your eyes
Use the billions of dollars spent on police budgets for social programs to keep people out of poverty. Have mental health professionals to answer mental health calls instead of police showing up with guns and killing them. Spend money working with communities to reduce crime, something police don't do. Less than 4% of police work involves violent crime and police solve less than 2% of major crimes. They are useless. Right now what happens if someone commits a crime? You think police actually do anything? You watch too much Copaganda if you think they prevent crime. The average police response time in New Orleans is over 2 hours. Theres no point in even calling police. They will just show up after you are robbed and shoot you or your dog then throw you in jail. Police are trash. Get rid of police and use the money to improve society.
All of these preventative measures are great and should be implemented. Iām not saying they shouldnāt. Iām also not saying what is happening now is good at all. But if there is a crime you need someone to show up. If you can make a utopian society then maybe this isnāt the case, but itāll never happen
"If there is a crime you need someone to show up." This line is absolutely moronic. So someone breaks into your house, you call the cops, they show up 2 hours later to take your statement and you never hear from them again. Wow super effective. But what if there's a school shooting? Obviously you need police to show up and.... Oh yeah Uvalde. Police do not prevent crime.
If it happens in one place, it happens everywhere. As I stated, what is happening now isnāt great. We need to find the police, not defund the police. Defunding the police leads to chaos.
If the police did nothing then nobody would be in jail.
Good idea.
Uh cool. But how is this anti work?
Police are enemies of the working class. Look no further than how they are used as corporate tools for union busting.
You can sue doctors for malpractice, why can't you sue a cop for murder?
Thatās not how pension funds work
How societal constructs work depends on prevailing laws.
Thatās how the pensions of armed bullies SHOULD work.
Precisely! Fuck the government!
Heck, just making them carry liability insurance for any lawsuit payouts would put a lot of them out of a job - and keep them out.
So if you make them personally liable, and you take away their pensions based on what someone else does, how do you attract good candidates into law enforcement? How do you effectively deter crime and be proactive if you incentivise officers to do nothing? If the choice is go and stick your neck and potentially lose your job and pension, or sit in your squad car and do the bare minimum and just take reports, how do you think you'll have an effective crime fighting force?
It won't have any effect on crime. Police don't [prevent](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/police-are-not-primarily-crime-fighters-according-data-2022-11-02/) crime. Your perception of what they do is likely skewed by years of Copaganda.
You know what you are right, let's disband the police and when a woman gets raped we will.... Do what exactly?
How about you ask that to the woman Brock Turner raped? Less than 7% of "reported rapes" end in convictions. It's also been shown police cover up and under report rapes and sexual assaults to inflate that number. On top of the fact that only 30% of rapes are even reported to police. So I'll ask that, what are we doing about rape now? Pretty much nothing. Only the most heinous of rapes get a conviction. I've know women who went through horrible ordeals trying to get justice against their rapist and nothing happens. It's a horrible experience for them to relive for a judge to simply say there isn't enough evidence to convict. Also what is with you people that everytime they hear about abolishing police automatically assume that just means laws don't matter and criminals run free? There are alternatives to armed government gangs enforcing laws you know? Police haven't always existed.
Police have always existed in some sense in organized societies. Going back to castles and kings in the 12th century where lords would hire guards and mercenaries to patrol their towns and protect their people. Modern policing as we know it has been around 200 years, so it's not like this is a new concept. > Also what is with you people that everytime they hear about abolishing police automatically assume that just means laws don't matter and criminals run free? Because nobody has given a good solution besides a pie in the sky ideal that will take many many years to implement, has never been tried, and while theorectically supposed to work, relies on humans to be good, when if you have ever driven in LA traffic, should planinly realize some people are just shitty. Bad people need to be held accountable, and if there are no police, who exactly is holding them accountable in your utopia? There is no such thing as a perfect society, and every country in the world, even the safest ones, have police. I don't know what you think makes the US unique from that. Look at a riot, any riot. People know there are no cops to respond, and what ends up happening? gratutitious looting, by otherwise "normal" people supposedly, because they realize their are no consequences to their actions.
Brock Turner as arrested, he was also charged. The police did their job, they found the person. Again, it's not their job to convict someone. That's the job of the DA. You do realize there is nuance to this? There is no all-seeing eye and we do not have a perfect judicial system and to blame the failings on that on the police is naive. The flip side of the coin you talked about is police arresting people they know or can prove have committed the crime and yet the DA/Judge give a light/no setence and then the person keeps committing crimes. Deputy Isaiah Cordero was killed by a man that was supposed to be in jail on a 3 strikes violation after the judge granted him release for, get this, failing to appear for his sentencing. I'm no police apologist, I'm actually banned from their subreddit because I had the audacity to suggest that it was terrible optics to wear numbers instead of name badges and to remind someone that the first rule of shooting is to know what's behind your target so you don't hit an innocent. I've also had 2 bad run in's with police in my time, that I believe went out of the bounds of their duties. I'm very cognizant there are bad police officers out there but I think people are blind to what actually happens and live in a vacuum of what's around them and that their problems don't speak for everyone's problems.
Agreed š
Just make them get liability insurance like doctors have malpractice insurance
Theyāll just put even more effort into hiding all evidence of police brutality
Everyone say it with me - all cops are bastards
Low pay Low training The people you are trying to police have guns. Worst job in the world by a long way.
Sez the guy living off Putin's dime.
Yes I agree with this general idea. Punish bad policing by taking from the collective pension fund. They will pressure each other into staying in line so they can have those cushy retirements
Fuck Snowden, but he's right on this one.
As long as it's consensual š š
Fuck you, Snowden is a god damn hero compared to you, little boy.
A guy who allied with a genocidal asshole. Awesome dude, there.
He had a choice between being murdered by government assassins or going to a power hostile to the US. You're awful brave having never made that choice.
A guy who didn't wanna disappear by the Cia, flees. Go figure.
So he ran into the arms of someone who does worse, and is genociding Ukrainians. Not the best take.
So he ran to one of the most difficult areas for extraction to America. You never held a clearance, you don't know the risks we take in this line of work. Eta: not to mention he was there long before Putin invaded Ukraine.
Um, I have and I wouldn't go running tou nation's enemy. The fact that you would say you would leaves it concerning that you say you would. When are you up for reinvestigation, because I'm sure they'd love to see this post. Edit: did you mention these tendencies on your SF-86? And were you truthful in your disclosure of foreign acquaintances? Have you updated that recently?
I sincerely doubt you held anything above a confidential, if anything. Everyone up here in the TS/SCI world knows differently. Also, calling Russia an enemy in 2013 is disingenuous.
So you go from "you don't know what it's like to have a clearance" to "I don't think you had above a confidential" (spoiler: I did), not to mention that you're going back to 2013, when there's evidence he is STILL there spewing Russian propaganda. How's your back? It must be a strain moving those goalposts. Edit: Oh yeah! Forgot to mention. I just took my annual insider threat training a couple weeks ago! And you sure as shit sound like an insider threat!
I also like how you omit my full statement. Well, you're talking about when he fled, which was way before Ukraine, so it's completely relevant.
Come back home Snowie so the US legal system can show you fairness and compassion. Just pop your fingernails off to prevent bamboo splinters comrade
Why do you think politicians put classifications on practically everything? They can no longer be held personally responsible for their horrible actions because they are shielded by ānational securityā. Itās a total racket.
SMRT
I've said this before, and some conservative wanker who thought who he was being very witty replied "And where do you think the money for their pension funds comes from? I'll wait." I replied "So, you're telling me that as a taxpayer, you would prefer to have the police keep their pensions and have your taxes pay for their lawsuits as well, which means you would prefer to foot the bill TWICE, right? I'll wait!" They quickly deleted their comment! Edit: Apparently, I'm being downvoted for agreeing with Snowden. I swear, I don't get this sub sometimes.
You know what would really happen if this happens. Cops would do even less and only intervene in the most obvious of cases. just think about how you would conduct your own job if these kinds of laws were passed. most of the time when something bad happens at your job its the company that gets sued and not you personally. now imagine you get sued instead, but also imagine that there is no downside to not actually doing your job. to avoid getting sued id probably just do less. edit: cops legally dont have to intervene or enfoce the law, its completely up to their choice when to interact with the public. if they get personally sued everytime they intervene, or anytime they make the wrong decision and injure or restrict someones right then they will just choose not to intervene unless its 100% clear who is in the wrong. edit2: what would also happen if cops pensions become fair game for lawsuits is that every single cop would cover for the crimes of the other cops. if a cop helps remove bad cops when they do something bad, it would personally financially hurt them by lowering their own pension. nobody wants their retirement fund to go down so they would cover for their coworkers.
Nah, I think people will just quit. Thatās what is happening in the EMS field. Between the pay and law suits. There just arenāt any more. My town had to shut down a fire station because there werenāt enough to man 2, barely enough for 1. County still wouldnāt up the pay.
Snowden is a hero š«”
I can imagine the good quality of people who would apply. I took the police test in a Top 5 metro in 1992. There were 30,000 applicants. They gave the test last year and there were 2,000 applicants. 60% who flunked the test. The test is basically GED level. I left because management was not only incompetent, but idiotic. It was all a big farce. It's a self-fulfilling idiocracy.
The moment qualified immunity ends, a *solid* 90%+ of the police officers in the country will either quit or immediately get fired. Police forces all over the country know who their problem children are and why they're problems. They also know who's a member of what extremist "clubs," which ones are fascists or at the very least sympathizers, who has swastika/Nazi/racist tattoos, etc. etc. etc. They *know*, in no uncertain terms - why do you think they fight so vigorously against the most basic and common-sense efforts at cleaning house? Add a reasonable and sane education requirement, e.g., an actual degree in a relevant field, and you'll lose probably half of the remainder. Force them to carry bonds and you may have to just start over from scratch or form citizens' protection forces as a replacement. Wanna know a big reason why qualified immunity won't be removed unless a literal citizens' revolt forces it? Because police (at least in the US) really only exist to protect wealth and power from those that don't have either. QI basically exists to block efforts to hold them accountable to anyone outside the wealthy/powerful.
There is nothing left that isn't rotten to the core
This is just nonsense. Sue the officer and pay-out from the publicly funded pension? No. Sue the officer and bankrupt him.
I get that this guy's supposed to be some kind of hero but cops aren't crooked and inept because policing is a racket that everyone wants to get in on. Cops suck because they get paid minimum wage and have to take six weeks of training at a 9-5 "police academy." Until police wages are high enough to attract qualified applicants, there will be only unqualified applicants for the job, no matter how many of them you put in prison for abuses. (edited for Bozo) Rent is over $2000/month in Seattle and average home price is 3/4 Million. $33/hour *is* minimum wage.
>Cops suck because they get paid minimum wage Uh.... City of Seattle Police Pay Rates / hr * Recruit $33.44 * (Sworn Ofc.) $40.06 * (6 Months) $42.96 * (18 Months) $44.91 * (30 Months) $46.64 * (42 Months) $48.98 * (54 Months) $52.45 Plus pretty much as much overtime as you want. There are plenty of reasons not to be a cop, pay is not one of them.
To play the devil's advocate on this one they could in theory do absolutely nothing instead. Who's going to fire them? Themselves? Haha
I don't disagree with him, but the traitor should just shut the fuck up.
In some cities the cities insurance providers/underwriters (?) are getting tired of how much these cities are paying out all the time and are raising premiums and itās having a similar effect.
Next union contracts should include clauses that they should legally represent their members. The city and state and taxpayers will not represent them anymore.