The Blue Wall of Silence Is Starting to Crack

[Cow Poke]

It is not a complaint. It a statement of fact. Simply transferring power from A to B will not eliminate the risk of corruption.

You really are dense. It is RESTORING the rightful power to the police administration, mayor and city council, and reining in the abusive power of the police unions, or eliminating them entirely.

Nobody claimed that "transferring power from A to B will eliminate the risk of corruption". That's simply your own dishonest derail. Because this is the kind of crap you do.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And yet that seems to be the standard you were holding Cow Poke to. Thus we will hold you to the same standard, m'kay?



And if those people on the independent review board are corrupt? Or incompetent? Review boards do not automatically guarantee an end to corruption.

Thus your idea is no better than Cow Poke's. Fail.

I think we are both agreed that corruption cannot ever be entirely ruled out. However, merely giving power from one side to the other with no independent oversight is not the best option, in my opinion.

[Sparko]

It is not a complaint. It a statement of fact. Simply transferring power from A to B will not eliminate the risk of corruption. Surely that is self evident? Nor are all Police Unions guilty of defending and protecting corrupt officers. Hence why should all Unions be stigmatised for the behaviours of some?

As we have all noted corruption can never be entirely eliminated.

And yet that seems to be the standard you were holding Cow Poke to. Thus we will hold you to the same standard, m'kay?

Tim Egan made some valid points in the article cited in the OP. However, re his suggestion that all officers wear body cameras, these have, of course, to be switched on. Otherwise you have incidents like the one in Columbus Ohio last December where the Mayor alleged an officer did not have his body camera switched on when he shot a man. Or the incident in March this year at Virginia Beach when another man was shot and again the officer did not have his camera switched on.


As to to solutions, some pages back I put forward a suggestion for either independent bodies made up of various individuals from different professional background [including police officers]; or a dedicated department within each state and/or police authority that is solely concerned with dealing with alleged police corruption and/or dereliction of duty.

And if those people on the independent review board are corrupt? Or incompetent? Review boards do not automatically guarantee an end to corruption.

Thus your idea is no better than Cow Poke's. Fail.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That, is complaining that CP's idea about police unions should culminate in an guaranteed end to corruption. You are complaining that his solution isn't perfect or complete. Thus I am not lying or telling any mistruth. I am just pointing out your unrealistic standard.

It is not a complaint. It a statement of fact. Simply transferring power from A to B will not eliminate the risk of corruption. Surely that is self evident? Nor are all Police Unions guilty of defending and protecting corrupt officers. Hence why should all Unions be stigmatised for the behaviours of some?

Again, what is YOUR completed and guaranteed solution to end corruption? Please enlighten us with your wisdom.

As we have all noted corruption can never be entirely eliminated.

Tim Egan made some valid points in the article cited in the OP. However, re his suggestion that all officers wear body cameras, these have, of course, to be switched on. Otherwise you have incidents like the one in Columbus Ohio last December where the Mayor alleged an officer did not have his body camera switched on when he shot a man. Or the incident in March this year at Virginia Beach when another man was shot and again the officer did not have his camera switched on.


As to to solutions, some pages back I put forward a suggestion for either independent bodies made up of various individuals from different professional background [including police officers]; or a dedicated department within each state and/or police authority that is solely concerned with dealing with alleged police corruption and/or dereliction of duty.

[Sparko]

Asking for someone to offer checks and balances for their proposed suggestion while acknowledging that corruption can never be entirely eradicated is not "demanding a perfect solution".

You need to examine your conscience about telling mistruths.

Eliminating labour unions and placing the power with the Police Chief and/or representatives from the municipal authority and/or local politicians does not automatically guarantee an end to corruption.

That, is complaining that CP's idea about police unions should culminate in an guaranteed end to corruption. You are complaining that his solution isn't perfect or complete. Thus I am not lying or telling any mistruth. I am just pointing out your unrealistic standard.

Again, what is YOUR completed and guaranteed solution to end corruption? Please enlighten us with your wisdom.

[Cow Poke]

----- blah blah blah ----

Ignoring your obligatory flatulence....

[my emphasis] Again, on what legal basis is the Command/Police Chief "the rightful authority"?

Because he/she is hired/commissioned for that post.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You're like a junkyard dog on a hambone --- you don't "ask" -- you hound... over and over and over and over ---- it's MUCH more like "demanding" than "asking".



This is, essentially, an accusation of lying without substantiation, and is against the rules.

I have never employed the phrase "perfect solution" and I have always noted that corruption cannot be entirely eradicated.

Hence Sparko was alleging I had written things I had not. What would you call that?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

My "explicit use of language". You mean - the way you analyze it to try to make it say what you want it to say because you're a dishonest knowed-up always looking to start a fight?

I am simply quoting what you wrote.

I'll try to explain this in a way that even you might be able to understand.

I understand very well.

To say that one "transfers power" from one entity to another fails to recognize the fact that, in this case, one entity had usurped the power from the rightful entity, and that power is being RETURNED to the rightful entity.

Are you entirely sure you have selected the correct term? The word "usurped" or usurpation is the wrongful or illegal encroachment, infringement, or seizure of something. Given that Police unions [for all their many faults] are recognised legal entities they cannot be guilty of usurpation.

That some unions have have [amassed, accumulated, increased] their powers by a combination of external political pressure [from political supporters] and/or via demands made through collective bargaining, they have not actually usurped power.

Furthermore on what legal basis are you premising your comment that the Command/Police Chief is the "rightful entity"?

It's not a contradiction - it's a clarification.

It's a contradiction.

The power doesn't need to be TRANSFERRED from the corrupt union to the rightful authority -- it needs to be RETURNED.

[my emphasis] Again, on what legal basis is the Command/Police Chief "the rightful authority"?

[Cow Poke]

Asking for someone to offer checks and balances for their proposed suggestion while acknowledging that corruption can never be entirely eradicated is not "demanding a perfect solution".

You're like a junkyard dog on a hambone --- you don't "ask" -- you hound... over and over and over and over ---- it's MUCH more like "demanding" than "asking".

You need to examine your conscience about telling mistruths.

This is, essentially, an accusation of lying without substantiation, and is against the rules.

[Cow Poke]

I never wrote that it did.

I pointed out that by your explicit use of language in those two replies you implied a "transfer" of power [i.e. To pass from one to another]

• Relevant extract from your post # 119 "Because it takes the power from the union and places it back into the hands of "command"
• Relevant extract from your post # 124 "By returning power to COMMAND [...] and taking it away from the LABOR UNIONS"

[My emphasis]

Those two comments contradict your later remark made at post #184 where you stated,

"No - get RID of the "Police Unions" that have been enabling, protecting and defending bad cops. PERIOD. No "transfer of power".[...] The Police Chief doesn't need power "transferred" to him/her ". [My emphasis]

My "explicit use of language". You mean - the way you analyze it to try to make it say what you want it to say because you're a dishonest knowed-up always looking to start a fight?

I'll try to explain this in a way that even you might be able to understand.

To say that one "transfers power" from one entity to another fails to recognize the fact that, in this case, one entity had usurped the power from the rightful entity, and that power is being RETURNED to the rightful entity.

It's not a contradiction - it's a clarification.

The power doesn't need to be TRANSFERRED from the corrupt union to the rightful authority -- it needs to be RETURNED.

[CivilDiscourse]

Asking for someone to offer checks and balances for their proposed suggestion while acknowledging that corruption can never be entirely eradicated is not "demanding a perfect solution".

You need to examine your conscience about telling mistruths.

Perhaps you should focus on whether the main thrust of the argument is true BEFORE trying to lead the poster down into what-if scenarios that would occur in isolated incidents.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

She also has claimed that she wasn't demanding a "perfect" solution, and yet that is exactly what she has been demanding from CP, and even spelled it out in her last post to me:

Asking for someone to offer checks and balances for their proposed suggestion while acknowledging that corruption can never be entirely eradicated is not "demanding a perfect solution".

You need to examine your conscience about telling mistruths.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

NONE of which has ANYTHING to do with Police Associations.

I never wrote that it did.

I pointed out that by your explicit use of language in those two replies you implied a "transfer" of power [i.e. To pass from one to another]

• Relevant extract from your post # 119 "Because it takes the power from the union and places it back into the hands of "command"
• Relevant extract from your post # 124 "By returning power to COMMAND [...] and taking it away from the LABOR UNIONS"

[My emphasis]

Those two comments contradict your later remark made at post #184 where you stated,

"No - get RID of the "Police Unions" that have been enabling, protecting and defending bad cops. PERIOD. No "transfer of power".[...] The Police Chief doesn't need power "transferred" to him/her ". [My emphasis]

[Sparko]

Let me try to explain:

CP thinks police unions contribute the to problem of enabling bad cops because they protect the cops using union tactics like collective bargaining (i.e. they can and will strike if they don't get their way) and paying for the defense of bad cops.

Police Associations don't do that. They are just organizations that promote fellowship among police officers and with the community they serve. It can be confusing because some Unions will call themselves "Associations" (e.g. Union of Police Associations) and some like the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) seem to be a mixture of the two.

[Cow Poke]

From post #184 which you inadvertently attributed to me



However, at post #119 part of your reply included this:



And at post # 124 your reply included this:



Both those comments refer directly to power being taken from one side and being returned to the other. In other words a transfer [i.e. To pass from one to another]

NONE of which has ANYTHING to do with Police Associations.

And, yes, power taken from Labor Unions and RETURNED to the other --- that LABOR UNIONS no longer be allowed to usurp the authority of "command".

Maybe you're finally getting it after all! (Though, no doubt, inadvertently, like a blind hog finding an acorn)