The Blue Wall of Silence Is Starting to Crack

[rogue06]

And ya know why? Because Chavin is one of the bad cops who was protected by the Police Union over and over again.

Try really hard to think about what that actually means.

Not just the union but the Hennepin County attorney at the time, the current Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), had a habit of sweeping misconduct cases under the rug.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And?

I am merely establishing facts.

I did!

Egan did not. That has been the point of contention.

Wow, you're really working hard to recover from your drastic handling of this whole thread!

My comments were in response to your suggestion that unions which defend corrupt offices be defunded.

One assumes that not every officer who is a member of that specific union is corrupt. Therefore, if that union is defunded, will that not impact on the honest members of that union?

It is a perfectly straightforward question.

First, I'll have to explain some very basic fundamentals to you.

Police departments are funded by municipalities.
Municipalities can adjust their funding based on the way the police departments they fund are behaving.
The police unions work in opposition to police management - it is, by design - a very adversarial relationship
The municipality can demand that the police chief (their employee) hold the line with regard to certain policies, and not cave in to police unions.

What do you mean by the phrase "hold the line” and can you offer specific examples as qualifications?

Now, mind you, not all police departments have members who belong to unions.
In that case, it would be wise for the municipality to discourage the allowance of labor unions without some clear guidelines.
Among those guidelines would be the "we draw the line here" with regards to discipline and firing of officers.

Again can you offer specifics? Your phrase “we draw the line here” is rather vague and if it was applied exactly as you have written it it leave open the possibility to abuses by police chiefs and/or elected representatives within the municipality. One can hardly suppose that corruption only exists within certain ranks within a police force.

Collusion between corrupt officials and/or politicians with corrupt police is not unknown either in the US or elsewhere.

I would have thought a completely independent body might be a better idea.

[Cow Poke]

Egan did not. That has been the point of contention.

Ah, back to all the magic font and color crap, eh? When content fails, enhance it with special fonts?
And, no, that has NOT been the point of contention.

[FONT=Calibri][COLOR=#252c2f] My comments were in response to your suggestion that unions which defend corrupt offices be defunded.

So, lemme be clear --- I was playing on the idiotic notion that police departments need to be "defunded", and the idiots who propose that can't even seem to agree on what that means.
So, lemme substitute -- unions need to be seriously reined in.

One assumes that not every officer who is a member of that specific union is corrupt. Therefore, if that union is defunded, will that not impact on the honest members of that union?

Look, unions are "funded" by their members --- and, in many cases, members are bullied into "joining" the union. My use of "defunding" was to mock the idiots who use that term to "defund" police.
The point was -- the unions are FAR more trouble than the police themselves.

As for the rest of your post, your use of fonts and colors makes it a bit challenging to answer, so I'll post this much, then figure out what else you were trying to say.

[Cow Poke]

[ What do you mean by the phrase "hold the line” and can you offer specific examples as qualifications?

Sure --- there needs to be agreement that an officer cannot endlessly rack up valid complaints, and be allowed to continue his job.
There needs to be, like there is in most organizations, a progressive enforcement --- first offense, x penalty - second offense, xx penalty, third offense - possible termination.

Again can you offer specifics? Your phrase “we draw the line here” is rather vague and if it was applied exactly as you have written it it leave open the possibility to abuses by police chiefs and/or elected representatives within the municipality. One can hardly suppose that corruption only exists within certain ranks within a police force.

Seriously, I think this is because you have absolutely no real concept of how police departments and unions work.

Collusion between corrupt officials and/or politicians with corrupt police is not unknown either in the US or elsewhere.

So?

I would have thought a completely independent body might be a better idea. [/SIZE]

A) not just no, but H-E-DoubleHockeySticks No.
2) but, just for grins, what do you think that "independent body" would look like?

Again, I really think you have absolutely no idea how this whole thing works.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Ah, back to all the magic font and color crap, eh? When content fails, enhance it with special fonts?

You are losing your memory. As I have informed you in the past, I often compose my replies in Word and then C&P them. That fact seems to cause you a degree of irritation which strikes me as completely out of proportion.

And, no, that has NOT been the point of contention.

Why did you feel the need to raise it?

So, lemme be clear --- I was playing on the idiotic notion that police departments need to be "defunded", and the idiots who propose that can't even seem to agree on what that means.

As I understood it from when it was first mentioned the notion was that money would instead go to improving social, educational, and welfare conditions in cities.

So, lemme substitute -- unions need to be seriously reigned in.

How do you prose that should be achieved without an adverse impact upon honest officers who wish to have an organisation that can represent them on working conditions, safety, salaries, pensions, holidays, etc? You have neatly side-stepped addressing that question.

Look, unions are "funded" by their members

Insofar as members pay a regular amount into the union. .

--- and, in many cases, members are bullied into "joining" the union.

Would you care to supply some evidence for that?

My use of "defunding" was to mock the idiots who use that term to "defund" police.

The suggestion that public money might be better spent on areas such as housing, education, health, and welfare does not, in and of itself, strike me as a suggestion made by "idiots".

The point was -- the unions are FAR more trouble than the police themselves.

Is that comment premised on the fact that these various police unions, on occasion, prevent corrupt and/or inadequate officers from being punished or removed?

Perhaps a national union of police might prove a better idea.

As for the rest of your post, your use of fonts and colors makes it a bit challenging to answer, so I'll post this much, then figure out what else you were trying to say.

Considering your comment that those issues were not the "point of contention" I have to wonder why you have seen fit to refer to them twice.

I repeat my earlier comments:

What do you mean by the phrase "hold the line” and can you offer specific examples as qualifications?

Again can you offer specifics? Your phrase “we draw the line here” is rather vague and if it was applied exactly as you have written it it leave open the possibility to abuses by police chiefs and/or elected representatives within the municipality. One can hardly suppose that corruption only exists within certain ranks within a police force.

Collusion between corrupt officials and/or politicians with corrupt police is not unknown either in the US or elsewhere.

I would have thought a completely independent body might be a better idea.

[Cow Poke]

You are losing your memory. As I have informed you in the past, I often compose my replies in Word and then C&P them. That fact seems to cause you a degree of irritation which strikes me as completely out of proportion.

I remember important stuff, but don't pay much attention to the prattling of ferreners who pretend to know more about my areas of expertise than I do.

[Cow Poke]

As I understood it from when it was first mentioned the notion was that money would instead go to improving social, educational, and welfare conditions in cities.

And this reveals your ignorance -- it means what the user means it to mean, and it ranges anywhere from what you just said -- which, in itself is dumb -- to totally elimination police departments. It all depends on which of the liberal loonies you cite.

How do you prose

I never prose. At least, not on purpose.

that should be achieved without an adverse impact upon honest officers who wish to have an organisation that can represent them on working conditions, safety, salaries, pensions, holidays, etc? You have neatly side-stepped addressing that question.

Actually, I HAVE answered that question, perhaps in the whole other thread dealing with this very topic. Our own police department has a "police association" which very much protects the interests of honest cops, but makes it very clear that it does NOT protect bad apples.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And this reveals your ignorance -- it means what the user means it to mean, and it ranges anywhere from what you just said -- which, in itself is dumb

Why do you consider that investing in health, education, welfare, and social programmes is “dumb”? Kindly explain your reasoning.

I never prose. At least, not on purpose.

A typo on my part.

However, all of us post our replies here in prose including you. You are not writing in spondee or anapaest meters nor are you producing a Petrachan sonnet or an Horatian ode.

Actually, I HAVE answered that question, perhaps in the whole other thread dealing with this very topic.

Not to me.

Our own police department has a "police association" which very much protects the interests of honest cops, but makes it very clear that it does NOT protect bad apples.

Is that association similar to a union? Who runs it? Who works in it? Who pays for it? What services does it provide for officers?

I remember important stuff, but don't pay much attention to the prattling of ferreners who pretend to know more about my areas of expertise than I do.

My remarks were intended to demonstrate the inanity of your pretending to know about my past. The fact is that at you know as much about me as I do about you . Which is precisely nothing.

Sure --- there needs to be agreement that an officer cannot endlessly rack up valid complaints, and be allowed to continue his job.
There needs to be, like there is in most organizations, a progressive enforcement --- first offense, x penalty - second offense, xx penalty, third offense - possible termination.

And what procedures does your own police association have in place for dealing with complaints against officers?

Another question, how would you suggest entrenched and systematic corruption be dealt with? For example with regard to your above suggestions; how would that system deal with an entrenched group of corrupt officers who fabricate complaints against one or two honest officers they suspect might be about to become whistle blowers? How would your proposed system deal with corruption that extended to the police chief and members of the municipal authority and/or local politicians?

What checks and balances would you put in place?

Seriously, I think this is because you have absolutely no real concept of how police departments and unions work.

Are you suggesting that corruption only exists among lower ranking uniformed police officers? What does “we draw the line here” actually mean and how would you apply it?

If by that phrase you are referring to your above remarks concerning complaints and penalties for offences – see above.

So?

How would your proposed system deal with the possibility of collusion between corrupt officials and/or politicians with corrupt police officers?

Once again what checks and balances would you put in place?

An independent body comprised of individuals from different public sectors that could include police officers, members of the judiciary, medical, education, and social welfare professions, qualified academics, and politicians might be established to look into and deal with complaints against police officers. Or alternatively some sort of police based department that was solely concerned with investigating allegations of police corruption

Of course corruption can never be entirely rooted out of any organisation but as my OP noted a system that permits the guards/watchers to guard/watch themselves does provide ample temptation and opportunity for corruption and/or collusion.

[Cow Poke]

Why do you consider that investing in health, education, welfare, and social programmes is “dumb”? Kindly explain your reasoning.

A typo on my part.

However, all of us post our replies here in prose including you. You are not writing in spondee or anapaest meters nor are you producing a Petrachan sonnet or an Horatian ode.

Not to me.

Is that association similar to a union? Who runs it? Who works in it? Who pays for it? What services does it provide for officers?

My remarks were intended to demonstrate the inanity of your pretending to know about my past. The fact is that at you know as much about me as I do about you . Which is precisely nothing.

And what procedures does your own police association have in place for dealing with complaints against officers?

Another question, how would you suggest entrenched and systematic corruption be dealt with? For example with regard to your above suggestions; how would that system deal with an entrenched group of corrupt officers who fabricate complaints against one or two honest officers they suspect might be about to become whistle blowers? How would your proposed system deal with corruption that extended to the police chief and members of the municipal authority and/or local politicians?

What checks and balances would you put in place?

Are you suggesting that corruption only exists among lower ranking uniformed police officers? What does “we draw the line here” actually mean and how would you apply it?

If by that phrase you are referring to your above remarks concerning complaints and penalties for offences – see above.


How would your proposed system deal with the possibility of collusion between corrupt officials and/or politicians with corrupt police officers?

Once again what checks and balances would you put in place?

An independent body comprised of individuals from different public sectors that could include police officers, members of the judiciary, medical, education, and social welfare professions, qualified academics, and politicians might be established to look into and deal with complaints against police officers. Or alternatively some sort of police based department that was solely concerned with investigating allegations of police corruption

Of course corruption can never be entirely rooted out of any organisation but as my OP noted a system that permits the guards/watchers to guard/watch themselves does provide ample temptation and opportunity for corruption and/or collusion.

How bout we stop the intensely fragmented parsing of every phrase, and bring it back to actual summary points, eh?

If you have specific questions, ask them --- but I'm really tired of all your derails.

[Cow Poke]

The fact remains that the major police unions are simply LABOR UNIONS who are paid by the members (the police) to protect the best interests of the police.
That's a fact, and it is not in dispute.

They are detrimental to the wellbeing of the communities where those police serve -- JUST LIKE the teachers unions are LABOR UNIONS who are paid by the members (the teachers) to protect the best interests of the teachers.
That's a fact, and it is not in dispute.

If you DO feel you can dispute it - you need to do with with facts, not derails and nuttery.

[Cow Poke]

So, I tried to work through your incredibly tedious screed, and it just becomes more apparent that you don't even understand the very basic elements of this situation well enough to intelligently discuss it.

Either that, or you're purposely being a bird-brained dingbat ditz just to keep the conversation going - I'm not sure which it is.
Because I know, however, that others read this, I'll do my best to clarify the points I feel are important.

First of all, there are many different type of law enforcement in the US.

Here, we are specifically dealing with 'police departments' which are funded by, and therefore answerable to, municipalities - cities, towns, townships, villages, etc.
Occasionally we see an offense committed by a Sheriff's Deputy - and Sheriff's Departments are funded, primarily, and therefore answerable to counties.

Within either department, there is a division between "line officers" and "command staff".
In many (not sure most) departments, that distinction is Sergeant and above. (In some others I'm aware of, it's Lieutenant and above.
The "command staff" works with the Chief (or Sheriff) to keep the "line officers" trained, disciplined, functional....

Unfortunately, in a lot of smaller departments, the "command structure" isn't really about command authority, but about longevity - a guy gets promoted because he's been on the department a long time and needs a pay raise, and pay raises are linked to 'job titles'.

In the case of a police department, the top of the command structure (police chief or police commissioner) is answerable to the mayor.
In the case of a Sheriff's department, the top of the command structure (the Sheriff) is answerable to the people through elections.

Got all that?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

How bout we stop the intensely fragmented parsing of every phrase, and bring it back to actual summary points, eh?

If you have specific questions, ask them --- but I'm really tired of all your derails.

"How bout" you answer some questions, which for someone who actually has decades of experience within the US police force and has rationally thought through their proposed ideas, would find remarkably straightforward to address.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So, I tried to work through your incredibly tedious screed, and it just becomes more apparent that you don't even understand the very basic elements of this situation well enough to intelligently discuss it.

Either that, or you're purposely being a bird-brained dingbat ditz just to keep the conversation going - I'm not sure which it is.
Because I know, however, that others read this, I'll do my best to clarify the points I feel are important.

First of all, there are many different type of law enforcement in the US.

Here, we are specifically dealing with 'police departments' which are funded by, and therefore answerable to, municipalities - cities, towns, townships, villages, etc.
Occasionally we see an offense committed by a Sheriff's Deputy - and Sheriff's Departments are funded, primarily, and therefore answerable to counties.

Within either department, there is a division between "line officers" and "command staff".
In many (not sure most) departments, that distinction is Sergeant and above. (In some others I'm aware of, it's Lieutenant and above.
The "command staff" works with the Chief (or Sheriff) to keep the "line officers" trained, disciplined, functional....

Unfortunately, in a lot of smaller departments, the "command structure" isn't really about command authority, but about longevity - a guy gets promoted because he's been on the department a long time and needs a pay raise, and pay raises are linked to 'job titles'.

In the case of a police department, the top of the command structure (police chief or police commissioner) is answerable to the mayor.
In the case of a Sheriff's department, the top of the command structure (the Sheriff) is answerable to the people through elections.

Got all that?

None of which addresses the possibility of corruption/collusion.

You have offered a suggestion for dealing with police corruption. So here [again] are the questions.

How would you suggest entrenched and systematic corruption be dealt with?
For example how would your suggested system deal with an entrenched group of corrupt officers who fabricate complaints against one or two honest officers they suspect might be about to become whistle blowers?
How would your proposed system deal with corruption that extended to the police chief and members of the municipal authority and/or local politicians?
What checks and balances would you put in place?


Regarding the police association with which you are familiar. Is that similar to a union?

Who runs it?
Who works in it?
Who pays for it?
What services does it provide for officers?

[Cow Poke]

None of which addresses the possibility of corruption/collusion.

I really don't think you understand the BASICS, which is why I was going back to that.

You have offered a suggestion for dealing with police corruption.

WOW, what a concession on your part!!!!

So here [again] are the questions.

How would you suggest entrenched and systematic corruption be dealt with?

The mayor and city council have to have the will to fight - and it will be a HUGE fight - because the LABOR UNIONS that represent police would be in solidarity with all sorts of other LABOR UNIONS who would threaten to strike. It would take a ton of courage, but if they managed to educate the populace -- the TAX payers -- they might be able to pull it off.

Here's a decent article....
If Police Unions Were Abolished and Police Associations Were Restored | California Policy Center

For example how would your suggested system deal with an entrenched group of corrupt officers who fabricate complaints against one or two honest officers they suspect might be about to become whistle blowers?
How would your proposed system deal with corruption that extended to the police chief and members of the municipal authority and/or local politicians?
What checks and balances would you put in place?

By returning power to COMMAND (did you even read my explanation?) and taking it away from the LABOR UNIONS.

Regarding the police association with which you are familiar. Is that similar to a union?

Who runs it?
Who works in it?
Who pays for it?
What services does it provide for officers?

I'll circle back to this.

[Cow Poke]

"How bout" you answer some questions, which for someone who actually has decades of experience within the US police force and has rationally thought through their proposed ideas, would find remarkably straightforward to address.

Because there has to be a basic understanding of the whole situation, and you have demonstrated a profound ignorance thereof.