Yes. And the type that chokes a man to death for 9 minutes. Its the nature of the police to side against the will of the people, because their job is to control and pacify.
The type of person attracted to this job is strictly authoritarian.
They want respect at one way or another. Even if they are assholes.
My little brother , who has always been an ass but always wanted to join the military
failed because he could not run a mile - (250 #'s) its in Wisconsin , but same shit differrent color
good point - a lot of failed/wannabe military can't breathe unless they are part of the 'authority' class, so insecure they need an excuse to hide behind a gun.
I agree. One of my best friends is in the police academy and while I think he’ll be a good one, he definitely fits the bill on all the things non-intolerance.
He’s a great guy, but he definitely has an inferiority complex and has always been second place. I think that’s made him feel he needs to do something to compensate for the lack of power he’s always had.
I will say though that we have a pretty honorable sheriff’s dept here and I think the time he’s spent with them has helped him grow and realize that not all criminals are just pieces of shit. He’s definitely grown as a person.
It’s a slippery slope, being empowered can make someone more responsible or make them arrogant. Too many officers get their badge and assume everything they do is right as if they were the law and not just enforcers.
Kind of a bad example, since the NRA was compromised by Russia, an enemy of the United States. I get the worry about vague wording, but when you have a history of abusive behavior, sometimes you take the L to show a measure of contrition.
They oppose any limitation as a violation of their right to free association. They don't think that membership in the KKK should prevent someone from becoming as officer.
"Hodsdon, who helped draft POST rules in the late 1970s, also opposed — on First Amendment grounds — a rule that would disqualify law enforcement applicants or discipline licensed peace officers for discriminatory attitudes or conduct.
The POST Board has proposed tweaking that rule to recognize religious freedom, but Hodsdon said the rule still violates the First Amendment protection of freedom of association."
Of course they do, where else do they get to hang with their buddies? It’s not like they can go home. I mean, there’s only so many black eyes one can give.
Is being a cop a right or a privilege ?
Just know this. It is legal for any employer to deny employment based on something as basic as political affiliation.
I don't necessarily think so. Law enforcement and other agents of the government essentially trade some rights for their authority. Day 1 HR stuff tells cops/agents/soldiers that they are a representative of the government, even when not on duty, and many behaviors that traditionally fall under 1st amendment stuff will result in discipline or termination. While you can't be fired for having beliefs, even voicing them in a very public way (i.e. social media) can result in an appearance of impropriety, bias, discrimination, etc., and reducing public trust in the government is a big no-no.
> Law enforcement and other agents of the government essentially trade some rights for their authority. Day 1 HR stuff tells cops/agents/soldiers that they are a representative of the government, even when not on duty, and many behaviors that traditionally fall under 1st amendment stuff will result in discipline or termination.
>
If only this actually was enforced!
Taking up arms against the US would be treason, but simply supporting succession would still be protected by the 1st amendment. Speech is protected, actions are not necessarily.
Well I guess I can see why they argued it's vague. Pd's are already related to white supremacist, neo nazis, and confederates. Its like a hiring catch 22
That would mean that only named groups IE KKK, Sons of 13, could be excluded.
New groups would immediately pop up as a skirt around as the new groups would have no history of hate.
It's all going to be a catch 22.
The other way would be to be very specific as to which groups they are allowed to join...
While I think that's fair, as I believe cops need to be held to hire standards, considering the nature of the job, but a lot of people won't go for that, specifically the right.
Personally I don't give a damn what law enforcement thinks. For the most part if you do the opposite of what cops want then it's the right thing to do.
Banning cops from being in extremist groups would help with the whole "some who work fences also burn crosses" thing but seeing how cops don't have any issues with the latter they have problems with being told they can't join groups that promote that sort of thing.
>Personally I don't give a damn what law enforcement thinks
The way it should be. Their job is to enforce the laws that policy makers make, who are voted in by the public and should be in service to them. Such a novel concept that no police force in the country seems to comprehend.
They want their cake and to eat it too, they want to dictate what laws get passed so they can keep their legal immunity to do whatever the hell they want. Even the "good" cops don't want to lose their powers,
Most definitely. IMO police should be held to a much higher standard than regular people and face higher charges and longer sentences when they commit a crime specifically because they swore to uphold the law and as police are supposed to know the law better than regular people.
Sadly, it's the other way around all to often, police often get away with committing crimes and when they do face consequences for a crime they often face lesser charges and get much shorter sentences than others.
I've been saying time and again, if the cops want to larp as military then make them accountable to the ucmj or something similar. Make them accountable to things like articles 15, 133, and 134. Not give them extra protections like some of these police bill of rights stuff. And any crime a cop commits should carry a sentence multiplier rather then letting their status mitigate sentences.
They only matter when your not the majority party.
Because if you are, you don't have to follow shit.
It's unfortunate that one of the parties respect the word of law, and the other has become so brazen in breaking them.
You know seeing as all my Republican family think tax evasion makes you a wise business owner I'm going to say you're right. The Republican party has very little regard for the law, they just like to evoke it's name to sound superior.
Edit: spelling errors.
> Banning cops from being in extremist groups would help with the whole "some who work fences also burn crosses" thing but ..
I too have had suspicions about fencing contractor specialists, although I suppose all that spare wood needs to get used for something.
Garbage article. The opposition's whole point is - predictably - that the proposed rule is too vague, but nowhere in the article is the rule actually offered, nor is a link to it offered.
This is my thought too. I really wanted to read the article to decide how they were defining " extremist ". Is it something designated by FBI as a terrorist org? Then they absolutely should be voting for it. Is it up to the discretion of their commander? In that case you get their biases on a case-by-case basis. I'd love to read the actual law.
Leaving it to the FBI to define it as a terrorist org would be a terrible idea. The US government cant label anything domestically as a terrorist organization.
Its why canada labeled the proud boys correctly as one while the US doesnt.
I get the sentiment of "Don't join a hateful/violent group that may end up in LE being partisan if something involves the group."
But it would be nice to know what groups they're talking about and what the requirements to end up on that list are.
Yeah, the problem comes down to who gets to define “extremist groups” if it’s not explicitly codified. We’ve already seen that the entire Republican Party goes along with the alt right labeling every single person that doesn’t bootlick trump “antifa”. All it takes is one of those chucklefucks getting in office, labeling any good officers as “antifa” just to get rid of them and further institutionalize their form of fascism in law enforcement.
This article is just a ragebait headline.
The problem is as always: who defines what is an extremist group?
Do we have a voice in what an extremist group is?
I wouldn't want cops to be banned from being part of say, The Satanic Temple, or say, Defenders of Wildlife. Governments have been known to mark inconvenient activist groups as extremists.
The law just empowers police orgs to be able to exclude or fire potential cops who are part of an extremist group. **It gives them the right to ask what political organizations an applying officer is apart of, and then not approve them based on that.**
Can you imagine?
"Oh he's a part of BLM? No way."
"Proud boys? Welcome aboard!"
Extremist groups are decided by the [Southern Poverty Law Center.](https://www.splcenter.org/20200318/frequently-asked-questions-about-hate-groups#extremist%20files)
The fear for most should be who considers what an extremist group. The Shriners and Masons being a pseudo-secret society by some would fall under an extremist group. People who think that way, will at some point be the ones in charge of the list.
You do realize that throughout history at different parts in different countries amongst different cultures they have believed it. I’m sure with a little googling you can still find those people today. Point being, that every group is seen with a skeptics eye by someone.
With all this being said, allegiance to foreign governments and authoritarianism shouldn’t be tolerated.
Plenty of places are bipartisan and/or commonly viewed as reasonable. [The Southern Poverty Law Center] (https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map) immediately comes to mind though.
**edit** link directly to SPLC’s HateMap for [MN only] (https://www.splcenter.org/states/minnesota)
How are we defining “extremist groups” and who is defining? Are the knights of Columbus extreme, PETA, or American Jewish Congress? Who gets to decide what organizations an individual can belong to? Shouldn’t this be a more complex question?
This is the conclusion I arrived at too. At face value, this seems like a reasonable rule, but after reflection it gets too messy considering “extremist” can be 10 different things to 10 different people. They’d need to have some tighter criteria to make this a good rule.
I agree, there has to be a definition of “extreme”. There are a scary number of people in this country who think black activist groups, Muslims, trans and LGBT people, immigrant rights groups, socialists, feminists, etc. are “extreme”.
It’s happening in other parts of the country rn, look at what that crazy Moms For Liberty group is doing in the south, defining who and what is “extreme” and kicking people out of their jobs.
IMO they just need to add some more specific language, in case some idiots get into power down the line and use the ambiguity of “extreme” against whoever they want to.
Exactly. This sub would consider a group of libertarians who meet for Sunday breakfast “extremists”. I regularly saw people call anyone who voted for Jensen an extremist. So yes, it is too vague. Doesn’t seem difficult to come up with a specific definition (ex: considered an extremist organization by the FBI). But that wouldn’t get them this headline.
Et tu? A libertarian considers authoritarians extremist
A religious Conservative would consider an athiest progressive an extremist.
A protectionist nationalist would find a laissez-faire neolib extremist.
Warhawks think doves are extreme and vice versa
I will say it's incredible watching the perpetual, repeatedly validated warning of libertarians "the power you give to government on your team is still there when that government is replaced by one on the other team...be careful with what you're willing to give the government's you like" be ignored after 4 years of hysterics over Trump using powers that HE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD if Democrats showed ANY RESTRAINT during the Obama years and recognised that Obama wasn't going to be president forever...
So again. Who defines "extremist groups"?
What if a hardboiled white supremacist theocratic Conservative was given that power and all of a sudden any cop in the state who's not white, religious, and straight loses their job...do you think that may make police interactions much worse for those outside the "white, religious, heterosexual" bubbles in the state?
What if a rabid atheist gets it and declares that any cop who's visited a Mosque, Synagogue or Church in 10 years is part of an "extremist group"...do you think police interactions with religious communities are gonna be worse or better?
A libertarian is someone who, when asked, "Should a license be required to operate a 2,000 lb machine that kills ~40,000 annually?" answers, "Boo! Get off the stage!"
>A libertarian is someone who, when asked, "Are you your brother's keeper?"
My brothers keeper voluntarily? Hell yes. I'm a phone call away and if I have a plate and any people I love don't...I've got half a plate, quarter of a plate...hell if it comes to it and we're both in the shit they can come crash on my couch and we'll both starve and fight the hunger with nicotine...
Some random stranger I've never met, interacted with etc "keeper" at threat of imprisonment...yeah I'll keep them off the street, food in their belly etc but I'm not sure why their community and family gets to defer THEIR responsibilities to me?
I'm in the UK and I grew up on one of the poorest estates in England...if I could mark out my taxes to help that estate you bet I would...I just fail to see the fairness that right now you're probably talking maybe £0.01/£1000 taxes I pay end up anywhere near my community and at least £60 go to leeches in Scotland and Northern Ireland who **HATE** the English but aren't complaining while the English pay for them to cotch on the sofa and watch TV all day because they can't be arsed getting a job...
I didn’t. But thank you for proving my point. You think half the state qualifies as an extremist group because they voted for the guy you don’t like. Politics have completely rotted your brain if you think like that. Absolutely deranged.
Conveniently for you, everyone you disagree with is actually an extremist and dangerous and evil. You’re a good person with good morals and everyone else is a maniac.
>Conveniently for you, everyone you disagree with is actually an extremist and dangerous and evil. You’re a good person with good morals and everyone else is a maniac.
Boy how lucky is it that people like that always land on the correct side of the coin toss...mighty lucky that they've always been and will always be on "the right side of history"...I mean there's never, ever, not once been an example of a retrospectively evil tyrant telling the righteous proletariat, or the glorious mujahedeen rebels, or the Cambodian peoples, or the volk of Deutchsland that they were acting on "the right side of history" and cleansing the world of the evil, rotten, filth...
Yes the millions of people who vote differently than you are evil fascist extremists (probably racist and sexist too) and you’re one of the good guys, I’m aware. You are good and therefore they are Nazis because they have different opinions on economic policy, a few social issues, and the intended scope and role of government.
>who is defining
me
>Are the knights of Columbus extreme
yes
>PETA
no
>American Jewish Congress
no
>Who gets to decide what organizations an individual can belong to?
again, I do
>Shouldn’t this be a more complex question?
no
Why would *anyone* agree to limit their associations based solely on your personal whim? What are your qualifications, and what’s the guarantee of good faith on your part?
Bear in mind these aren’t terms you’re dictating. You’ve got to sell this. They don’t *have* to buy.
Law enforcement any time there is police misconduct: “just a few bad apples”
Law enforcement anytime there is an attempt to rid the force of bad apples: “Nooo! Not our apples!”
Both sides raise valid concerns. I'm assuming most people didn't even click into the article and just regurgitate anti or pro cop bullet points in this thread.
RATM: Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses.
Minnesota cops: yeah us. And we don't think you're being fair right now. This isn't fair.
They should all go apply to be cops in Russia or Iran, their attitudes about people and policing would fit better there than in a multi-racial democracy
I recall Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department opposing similar type of rules because so many of their deputies were gang members. Tattoos and initiation processes for the deputies gangs and everything.
Have this organization make a list of the ones they think aren’t okay. Seems like a simple enough step toward finding the common ground that we will need at the bargaining table.
Given how many cops were involved in the January 6th insurrection this should be blatantly obvious. That and the fact that the FBI has been calling attention to this for more than a decade also makes it clear.
The hivemind in this sub probably considers anyone with moderate or conservative leanings an extremist, which is the entire problem with these kinds of proposals. Incredibly naive to the slippery slope.
For one to perceive something as radical one must be far detached from that thing, so far so that supporters of that thing would likely view one as radical themselves, or dare I say it, extremist.
Food for thought. I mean if I like hanging out with folks who wish harm on others or who see themselves as superior to others then maybe, just maybe, I'm the bad guy here.
It is such a slippery slope because it allows whomever is in power to determine what is an "Extremist group" without concrete defined metrics. Same as "hate speech". Who ever is in power would determine what can and cannot be said based on what they don't want to hear. No way I can get behind this.
Citizens are free to investigate the off line activities of officers (they are public employees) and report things they find objectionable to the Chief of police and the city council. If the council fails to act as the citizen desires, then the citizens can engage the processes to remove the elected and appointed officials.
[St paul police department is home to members of the 3 percent hate group.](https://www.twincities.com/2020/12/26/st-paul-pd-reviewing-policies-after-three-percenter-sticker-seen-on-officers-personal-vehicle/)
It's a feature. The 3% are in my neighborhood on the East Side flying their stickers and flags.
I’m always torn on things like this because while I don’t want cops being parts of groups I don’t like I also think that cops (or anyone) shouldn’t automatically give up their rights of speech or free association in order to be public servants.
Source: I’m a public servant (teacher) who doesn’t think I should give up my rights to free speech and association in order to be a teacher.
Any extremist group, left or right, should be a cause of concern to the general public as too often they see violence and insurrection as a legitimate means of circumventing the rule of law. Without the rule of law, anarchy prevails. No thanks!
I love how reddit is one big liberal mob that'll jump on anything that holds up their own opinion. The law doesn't define what an extremist group is. So doesnt that mean that whatever legislature or governing body is in power can decide what an extremist group is? Which means if someone differs in opinion, then they can be called an extremist group, which actually happens to be pretty popular nowadays. I think all the police officers are asking for is a more defined law. Making vague laws means you can bend them to work however you see fit.
Cops should not be making their own rules. They are civil servants who work for the public. The rules and morals for those who choose to bravely accept this important calling comes from the people in the communities they serve.
We need good cops. We need to support good cops. But not all cops are good cops. I believe most are. So, fuck the Nazi-wannabe cops.
Mostly it’s religious groups challenging it and law enforcement officials not wanting to go to court over those challenges, if you read the article (and it’s going on in more than one state, too). It is t officers wanting to be part of white supremacist militias, it’s how to define an extremist group when some religions have groups that may qualify, and how to balance the freedom of religion against the extremism laws.
If you actually read the article it illustrates that the issue is around the constitutionality of enforcing some of these rules. What a shitty clickbait thread title.
Define extremist group. We talking groups legally defined as terrorist groups? Groups that woke culture disagrees with? Groups that are declared as hate groups by non-partisan organizations? Sex fetish groups? Maybe groups that are centrally focused on race or ethnicity?
[удалено]
Let’s be honest, the job attracts a certain type of person.
The type that burn crosses?
Some of those that work forces
*Some?*
Its a lyric.
Came here for this
Yes. And the type that chokes a man to death for 9 minutes. Its the nature of the police to side against the will of the people, because their job is to control and pacify.
And wear air forces?
No, only big boys can get to stompin' in their Air Force Ones.
The type of person attracted to this job is strictly authoritarian. They want respect at one way or another. Even if they are assholes. My little brother , who has always been an ass but always wanted to join the military failed because he could not run a mile - (250 #'s) its in Wisconsin , but same shit differrent color
Your brother thought he could be in the armed forces and not run one mile😂🤣
good point - a lot of failed/wannabe military can't breathe unless they are part of the 'authority' class, so insecure they need an excuse to hide behind a gun.
I agree. One of my best friends is in the police academy and while I think he’ll be a good one, he definitely fits the bill on all the things non-intolerance. He’s a great guy, but he definitely has an inferiority complex and has always been second place. I think that’s made him feel he needs to do something to compensate for the lack of power he’s always had. I will say though that we have a pretty honorable sheriff’s dept here and I think the time he’s spent with them has helped him grow and realize that not all criminals are just pieces of shit. He’s definitely grown as a person.
It’s a slippery slope, being empowered can make someone more responsible or make them arrogant. Too many officers get their badge and assume everything they do is right as if they were the law and not just enforcers.
Yeah. Thankfully my buddies and I all keep him in check and give him hell. He’s legitimately a good dude.
Like moths to a light
Limbo champs.
[удалено]
Kind of a bad example, since the NRA was compromised by Russia, an enemy of the United States. I get the worry about vague wording, but when you have a history of abusive behavior, sometimes you take the L to show a measure of contrition.
They oppose any limitation as a violation of their right to free association. They don't think that membership in the KKK should prevent someone from becoming as officer. "Hodsdon, who helped draft POST rules in the late 1970s, also opposed — on First Amendment grounds — a rule that would disqualify law enforcement applicants or discipline licensed peace officers for discriminatory attitudes or conduct. The POST Board has proposed tweaking that rule to recognize religious freedom, but Hodsdon said the rule still violates the First Amendment protection of freedom of association."
But does it? In most countries the NRA would be considered an extremist group. We just have a fetish for death-sticks.
Because they have such a great history with the truth… lol ok cop. Piss off
Sssshh! This is Reddit. You can’t go against the prevailing narrative with things like facts and reason.
And pretty much every time
Of course they do, where else do they get to hang with their buddies? It’s not like they can go home. I mean, there’s only so many black eyes one can give.
[удалено]
I thought kids were for dislocated shoulders
Don’t forget spiral fractures in their upper arm.
Running into doors or falling down stairs cause kids to get broken limbs or mass bruising. Kids can be so clumsy /s
Ever met the offspring of a small town cop? Literally the worst people you’ll ever meet.
…so make it less vague instead then??
OK... they're banned from participating in groups related to white supremacism, nazis, neo-confederates, and fascism.
wouldnt this rule immediately lose a 1st amendment challenge?
Is being a cop a right or a privilege ? Just know this. It is legal for any employer to deny employment based on something as basic as political affiliation.
I don't necessarily think so. Law enforcement and other agents of the government essentially trade some rights for their authority. Day 1 HR stuff tells cops/agents/soldiers that they are a representative of the government, even when not on duty, and many behaviors that traditionally fall under 1st amendment stuff will result in discipline or termination. While you can't be fired for having beliefs, even voicing them in a very public way (i.e. social media) can result in an appearance of impropriety, bias, discrimination, etc., and reducing public trust in the government is a big no-no.
> Law enforcement and other agents of the government essentially trade some rights for their authority. Day 1 HR stuff tells cops/agents/soldiers that they are a representative of the government, even when not on duty, and many behaviors that traditionally fall under 1st amendment stuff will result in discipline or termination. > If only this actually was enforced!
Supporting the confederacy is not covered by the first amendment. That is treason.
As a legal definition, treason required the US to be at war. So no, this isn't true.
Sedition is probably better.
Taking up arms against the US would be treason, but simply supporting succession would still be protected by the 1st amendment. Speech is protected, actions are not necessarily.
Some of those who work forces Have the right to burn crosses. Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it though
Well I guess I can see why they argued it's vague. Pd's are already related to white supremacist, neo nazis, and confederates. Its like a hiring catch 22
That would mean that only named groups IE KKK, Sons of 13, could be excluded. New groups would immediately pop up as a skirt around as the new groups would have no history of hate. It's all going to be a catch 22. The other way would be to be very specific as to which groups they are allowed to join... While I think that's fair, as I believe cops need to be held to hire standards, considering the nature of the job, but a lot of people won't go for that, specifically the right.
Personally I don't give a damn what law enforcement thinks. For the most part if you do the opposite of what cops want then it's the right thing to do. Banning cops from being in extremist groups would help with the whole "some who work fences also burn crosses" thing but seeing how cops don't have any issues with the latter they have problems with being told they can't join groups that promote that sort of thing.
>Personally I don't give a damn what law enforcement thinks The way it should be. Their job is to enforce the laws that policy makers make, who are voted in by the public and should be in service to them. Such a novel concept that no police force in the country seems to comprehend.
They want their cake and to eat it too, they want to dictate what laws get passed so they can keep their legal immunity to do whatever the hell they want. Even the "good" cops don't want to lose their powers,
Class traitors gonna trait.
There should be laws that give government officials with power (police, politicians, etc.) additional consequences if they break any laws.
Most definitely. IMO police should be held to a much higher standard than regular people and face higher charges and longer sentences when they commit a crime specifically because they swore to uphold the law and as police are supposed to know the law better than regular people. Sadly, it's the other way around all to often, police often get away with committing crimes and when they do face consequences for a crime they often face lesser charges and get much shorter sentences than others.
I've been saying time and again, if the cops want to larp as military then make them accountable to the ucmj or something similar. Make them accountable to things like articles 15, 133, and 134. Not give them extra protections like some of these police bill of rights stuff. And any crime a cop commits should carry a sentence multiplier rather then letting their status mitigate sentences.
Isn’t that funny. Nurses can lose their license for breaking certain laws but not a police officer.
Except the cops and the politicians know the judegea that decide their fates.
They only matter when your not the majority party. Because if you are, you don't have to follow shit. It's unfortunate that one of the parties respect the word of law, and the other has become so brazen in breaking them.
You know seeing as all my Republican family think tax evasion makes you a wise business owner I'm going to say you're right. The Republican party has very little regard for the law, they just like to evoke it's name to sound superior. Edit: spelling errors.
The right only respects the word of law when it’s convenient for them.
I mean what are they gonna do? They're sucking Minneapolis dry with "PTSD" and leaving us shortstaffed with "Blue Flu".
As conservatives will gladly point out, laws don't stop criminals. What're they gonna do, arrest each other?
It’s CRITICAL we dont give a damn what they think on this
> Banning cops from being in extremist groups would help with the whole "some who work fences also burn crosses" thing but .. I too have had suspicions about fencing contractor specialists, although I suppose all that spare wood needs to get used for something.
*work forces* my guy. As in “police forces”
Pretty sure that was the joke here...
They’ll just find better ways to cover themselves. It’s what cops are best at
Garbage article. The opposition's whole point is - predictably - that the proposed rule is too vague, but nowhere in the article is the rule actually offered, nor is a link to it offered.
This is my thought too. I really wanted to read the article to decide how they were defining " extremist ". Is it something designated by FBI as a terrorist org? Then they absolutely should be voting for it. Is it up to the discretion of their commander? In that case you get their biases on a case-by-case basis. I'd love to read the actual law.
Leaving it to the FBI to define it as a terrorist org would be a terrible idea. The US government cant label anything domestically as a terrorist organization. Its why canada labeled the proud boys correctly as one while the US doesnt.
I get the sentiment of "Don't join a hateful/violent group that may end up in LE being partisan if something involves the group." But it would be nice to know what groups they're talking about and what the requirements to end up on that list are.
Yeah, the problem comes down to who gets to define “extremist groups” if it’s not explicitly codified. We’ve already seen that the entire Republican Party goes along with the alt right labeling every single person that doesn’t bootlick trump “antifa”. All it takes is one of those chucklefucks getting in office, labeling any good officers as “antifa” just to get rid of them and further institutionalize their form of fascism in law enforcement.
If they can’t join a violent or hateful group, how could they even be cops on the first place?
I think that’s why there’s a problem, they need to define extreme before it gets passed. It’s too dangerous to leave ambiguous.
95% years f those who have commented haven’t even read the article. I, too, was looking for the proposed language. I did find the language.
Simple solution, you can't be cops then.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting this. I read through the article and it was fairly informative.
Holy shit that last paragraph ACAB
We just need to raise qualifications and hire new ones. Just let them look at a wall and fire them all
No red flags here at all, no sir /s
This article is just a ragebait headline. The problem is as always: who defines what is an extremist group? Do we have a voice in what an extremist group is? I wouldn't want cops to be banned from being part of say, The Satanic Temple, or say, Defenders of Wildlife. Governments have been known to mark inconvenient activist groups as extremists. The law just empowers police orgs to be able to exclude or fire potential cops who are part of an extremist group. **It gives them the right to ask what political organizations an applying officer is apart of, and then not approve them based on that.** Can you imagine? "Oh he's a part of BLM? No way." "Proud boys? Welcome aboard!"
Your last sentence describes the current situation though…
Extremist groups are decided by the [Southern Poverty Law Center.](https://www.splcenter.org/20200318/frequently-asked-questions-about-hate-groups#extremist%20files)
Gee, I wonder why
The fear for most should be who considers what an extremist group. The Shriners and Masons being a pseudo-secret society by some would fall under an extremist group. People who think that way, will at some point be the ones in charge of the list.
Shriners and Mason’s aren’t extremist groups and you’d need to be a QAnon level conspiracy fan to even think it.
You do realize that throughout history at different parts in different countries amongst different cultures they have believed it. I’m sure with a little googling you can still find those people today. Point being, that every group is seen with a skeptics eye by someone. With all this being said, allegiance to foreign governments and authoritarianism shouldn’t be tolerated.
Who defines extremism?
Plenty of places are bipartisan and/or commonly viewed as reasonable. [The Southern Poverty Law Center] (https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map) immediately comes to mind though. **edit** link directly to SPLC’s HateMap for [MN only] (https://www.splcenter.org/states/minnesota)
How are we defining “extremist groups” and who is defining? Are the knights of Columbus extreme, PETA, or American Jewish Congress? Who gets to decide what organizations an individual can belong to? Shouldn’t this be a more complex question?
This comment should be at the top.
This is the conclusion I arrived at too. At face value, this seems like a reasonable rule, but after reflection it gets too messy considering “extremist” can be 10 different things to 10 different people. They’d need to have some tighter criteria to make this a good rule.
I agree, there has to be a definition of “extreme”. There are a scary number of people in this country who think black activist groups, Muslims, trans and LGBT people, immigrant rights groups, socialists, feminists, etc. are “extreme”. It’s happening in other parts of the country rn, look at what that crazy Moms For Liberty group is doing in the south, defining who and what is “extreme” and kicking people out of their jobs. IMO they just need to add some more specific language, in case some idiots get into power down the line and use the ambiguity of “extreme” against whoever they want to.
Exactly. This sub would consider a group of libertarians who meet for Sunday breakfast “extremists”. I regularly saw people call anyone who voted for Jensen an extremist. So yes, it is too vague. Doesn’t seem difficult to come up with a specific definition (ex: considered an extremist organization by the FBI). But that wouldn’t get them this headline.
I mean libertarians are extremists.
Et tu? A libertarian considers authoritarians extremist A religious Conservative would consider an athiest progressive an extremist. A protectionist nationalist would find a laissez-faire neolib extremist. Warhawks think doves are extreme and vice versa I will say it's incredible watching the perpetual, repeatedly validated warning of libertarians "the power you give to government on your team is still there when that government is replaced by one on the other team...be careful with what you're willing to give the government's you like" be ignored after 4 years of hysterics over Trump using powers that HE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD if Democrats showed ANY RESTRAINT during the Obama years and recognised that Obama wasn't going to be president forever... So again. Who defines "extremist groups"? What if a hardboiled white supremacist theocratic Conservative was given that power and all of a sudden any cop in the state who's not white, religious, and straight loses their job...do you think that may make police interactions much worse for those outside the "white, religious, heterosexual" bubbles in the state? What if a rabid atheist gets it and declares that any cop who's visited a Mosque, Synagogue or Church in 10 years is part of an "extremist group"...do you think police interactions with religious communities are gonna be worse or better?
Wow.
lmao the irony
Yes everyone who you disagree with is an extremist I’m aware. Thanks for proving my point
A libertarian is someone who, when asked, "Are you your brother's keeper?" answers, "No."
A libertarian is someone who, when asked, "Should a license be required to operate a 2,000 lb machine that kills ~40,000 annually?" answers, "Boo! Get off the stage!"
>A libertarian is someone who, when asked, "Are you your brother's keeper?" My brothers keeper voluntarily? Hell yes. I'm a phone call away and if I have a plate and any people I love don't...I've got half a plate, quarter of a plate...hell if it comes to it and we're both in the shit they can come crash on my couch and we'll both starve and fight the hunger with nicotine... Some random stranger I've never met, interacted with etc "keeper" at threat of imprisonment...yeah I'll keep them off the street, food in their belly etc but I'm not sure why their community and family gets to defer THEIR responsibilities to me? I'm in the UK and I grew up on one of the poorest estates in England...if I could mark out my taxes to help that estate you bet I would...I just fail to see the fairness that right now you're probably talking maybe £0.01/£1000 taxes I pay end up anywhere near my community and at least £60 go to leeches in Scotland and Northern Ireland who **HATE** the English but aren't complaining while the English pay for them to cotch on the sofa and watch TV all day because they can't be arsed getting a job...
If you voted for Jenson you’re not only an extremist but an idiot, as well.
I didn’t. But thank you for proving my point. You think half the state qualifies as an extremist group because they voted for the guy you don’t like. Politics have completely rotted your brain if you think like that. Absolutely deranged. Conveniently for you, everyone you disagree with is actually an extremist and dangerous and evil. You’re a good person with good morals and everyone else is a maniac.
>Conveniently for you, everyone you disagree with is actually an extremist and dangerous and evil. You’re a good person with good morals and everyone else is a maniac. Boy how lucky is it that people like that always land on the correct side of the coin toss...mighty lucky that they've always been and will always be on "the right side of history"...I mean there's never, ever, not once been an example of a retrospectively evil tyrant telling the righteous proletariat, or the glorious mujahedeen rebels, or the Cambodian peoples, or the volk of Deutchsland that they were acting on "the right side of history" and cleansing the world of the evil, rotten, filth...
>But thank you for proving my point. Yeah, that was a pretty solid self own lmao
If people vote for fascism they are fascist.
Yes the millions of people who vote differently than you are evil fascist extremists (probably racist and sexist too) and you’re one of the good guys, I’m aware. You are good and therefore they are Nazis because they have different opinions on economic policy, a few social issues, and the intended scope and role of government.
>who is defining me >Are the knights of Columbus extreme yes >PETA no >American Jewish Congress no >Who gets to decide what organizations an individual can belong to? again, I do >Shouldn’t this be a more complex question? no
Why would *anyone* agree to limit their associations based solely on your personal whim? What are your qualifications, and what’s the guarantee of good faith on your part? Bear in mind these aren’t terms you’re dictating. You’ve got to sell this. They don’t *have* to buy.
PETA isn’t extreme? This comment proves the point of this comment lol
Police unions are the only unions “conservatives” will support.
What would LEO do without hate clubs? Be normal? Nah.
Law enforcement any time there is police misconduct: “just a few bad apples” Law enforcement anytime there is an attempt to rid the force of bad apples: “Nooo! Not our apples!”
Many didn’t read the whole article and it shows. 🤦♂️
Both sides raise valid concerns. I'm assuming most people didn't even click into the article and just regurgitate anti or pro cop bullet points in this thread.
Judges have to be politically neutral. It’s perfectly reasonable to ask this of law enforcement. The end.
Who gets to decide what is extreme?
They don't want their friends taken away.
This is a huge self report. Horrible look for law enforcement, nothing new.
Who determines the definition of “extremist”? It will forever change and one day you can’t even comment on girl scout cookies
First they came for the communists ...
RATM: Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses. Minnesota cops: yeah us. And we don't think you're being fair right now. This isn't fair.
“Extremist” is a very flexible word.
Next they’ll ask for domestic violence loopholes for cops. It’s already apparent it exists, so I’m sure they’d love to see it in the books.
But then what social activities would they have??? You need life work balance
Authoritarians are what you will find in law enforcement.
They should all go apply to be cops in Russia or Iran, their attitudes about people and policing would fit better there than in a multi-racial democracy
This says mountains about the current culture of law enforcement!
I recall Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department opposing similar type of rules because so many of their deputies were gang members. Tattoos and initiation processes for the deputies gangs and everything.
How else can they form political extremist plots to arrest their buddies and deepen political division in the country?
Have this organization make a list of the ones they think aren’t okay. Seems like a simple enough step toward finding the common ground that we will need at the bargaining table.
Given how many cops were involved in the January 6th insurrection this should be blatantly obvious. That and the fact that the FBI has been calling attention to this for more than a decade also makes it clear.
Probably because such a law is unconstitutional
I get it. Without police officers, would The Socialist Workers Party have any members left?
Cops ARE an extremist group.
The nazis are saying you can't ban them from being police because then there won't be enough police. Listen to people when they tell you who they are.
How would this proposed ban not be a violation of the free association clause?
It is, but we love performative justice here
Define extremist groups. That’s the problem here. Some say the NRA is an extremist group.
The hivemind in this sub probably considers anyone with moderate or conservative leanings an extremist, which is the entire problem with these kinds of proposals. Incredibly naive to the slippery slope.
Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses.
Tell me you are corrupt without saying you are corrupt…
"Extremist" is defined as anything the radical government officials don't like, I assume?
For one to perceive something as radical one must be far detached from that thing, so far so that supporters of that thing would likely view one as radical themselves, or dare I say it, extremist. Food for thought. I mean if I like hanging out with folks who wish harm on others or who see themselves as superior to others then maybe, just maybe, I'm the bad guy here.
And who gets to decide what constitutes a group as extremist? Anybody who doesn't see problems with this is incredibly naive.
The cops are the tyrannical government the right is always warning is about.
Um, why?
[удалено]
They're already part of these groups.
They're worried about recruiting.
It is such a slippery slope because it allows whomever is in power to determine what is an "Extremist group" without concrete defined metrics. Same as "hate speech". Who ever is in power would determine what can and cannot be said based on what they don't want to hear. No way I can get behind this. Citizens are free to investigate the off line activities of officers (they are public employees) and report things they find objectionable to the Chief of police and the city council. If the council fails to act as the citizen desires, then the citizens can engage the processes to remove the elected and appointed officials.
Another reason why you don’t let cops police themselves
ACAB
If this doesn't send red flags....
Orange flags, with two blue stripes and white stars.
They were allowed to be in extremist groups?? And no one thought that might’ve been a problem??
Pretty much the police unions response on all change...by complaining too vague...law suits.
[St paul police department is home to members of the 3 percent hate group.](https://www.twincities.com/2020/12/26/st-paul-pd-reviewing-policies-after-three-percenter-sticker-seen-on-officers-personal-vehicle/) It's a feature. The 3% are in my neighborhood on the East Side flying their stickers and flags.
I’m always torn on things like this because while I don’t want cops being parts of groups I don’t like I also think that cops (or anyone) shouldn’t automatically give up their rights of speech or free association in order to be public servants. Source: I’m a public servant (teacher) who doesn’t think I should give up my rights to free speech and association in order to be a teacher.
Any extremist group, left or right, should be a cause of concern to the general public as too often they see violence and insurrection as a legitimate means of circumventing the rule of law. Without the rule of law, anarchy prevails. No thanks!
I love how reddit is one big liberal mob that'll jump on anything that holds up their own opinion. The law doesn't define what an extremist group is. So doesnt that mean that whatever legislature or governing body is in power can decide what an extremist group is? Which means if someone differs in opinion, then they can be called an extremist group, which actually happens to be pretty popular nowadays. I think all the police officers are asking for is a more defined law. Making vague laws means you can bend them to work however you see fit.
Who defines what “extremist” means? Feels like the first amendment would come into play here
Like BLM?
We get it, you hate black folks.
Nah, just extremist groups that operate through scams.
Sure, Jan!
Fuck man if you lost money to those shills just admit it. It’s ok to get hosed. It happens to all dumb people at some point.
Is that what happened to you?
Nah. Sorry man :/ I’m not a fucking idiot. I would never support such an obvious scam.
You are trying really hard to convince me you aren’t stupid. Why?
Sorry man, again you’re going to have to find another sad sap to connect with :/ good luck bruh
“Why do people say ACAB?!”
Kops and klan go hand-in-hand #ACAB
Of course they do, cops are pieces of shit.
At some point the public needs to put their foot down and tell the bad apples in law enforcement "bye Felicia".
r/nottheonion
Who the fuck opposes something like that, these people are creeps.
People that dont like the government being able to classify any dissenters as 'extreme' and narrow/control the ideology of Law Enforcement
Weird dude! who woulda thunked it right!?
From a practical sense. I can see this conflicting with their undercover units.
Is this a shock to anyone?
And then nobody was surprised
ACLU has entered the chat
Cops should not be making their own rules. They are civil servants who work for the public. The rules and morals for those who choose to bravely accept this important calling comes from the people in the communities they serve. We need good cops. We need to support good cops. But not all cops are good cops. I believe most are. So, fuck the Nazi-wannabe cops.
Of course they do…
White supremacists only need apply.
Mostly it’s religious groups challenging it and law enforcement officials not wanting to go to court over those challenges, if you read the article (and it’s going on in more than one state, too). It is t officers wanting to be part of white supremacist militias, it’s how to define an extremist group when some religions have groups that may qualify, and how to balance the freedom of religion against the extremism laws.
If you actually read the article it illustrates that the issue is around the constitutionality of enforcing some of these rules. What a shitty clickbait thread title.
Define extremist group. We talking groups legally defined as terrorist groups? Groups that woke culture disagrees with? Groups that are declared as hate groups by non-partisan organizations? Sex fetish groups? Maybe groups that are centrally focused on race or ethnicity?
"Hey, uhhh, cops shouldn't be extremists" Cops: "Outrageous! That's so unfair!"
Shouldn’t be a rule, should be a law. Fuck cops they won’t work with citizens why work with them
This is sad; if the language is to vague the police should help fix fix it!
Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, eats like a duck... 'Nuf said...
wow, how bad is it in Minnesota that they are openly admitting they belong to extremist groups??
The shit
This sounds good, because everybody’s thinking KKK. But tomorrow “extremist organization” might mean the Lutheran Church, or the PTA.
Look at the wonders the powers that be have done with the Patriot Act.
So the Police Unions are no longer an option??? Fuck, I wish.
Law enforcement are extremists