Get Rid of Police Unions

[PokerGuy]

Yeah, and in doing so keeping sh*tty employees employed. If management can't remove these employees and replace them with the best available because the Union won't let them, how is that management's fault? Clearly the Unions are protecting sh*tty employees.

Their mission of the is to serve the best interests of their members -- that part is good. The problem is that many unions interpret that mandate to mean "protect members at any cost, including ones that are really bad apples". If they all understood that getting rid of the bad apples is in fact beneficial to both the employer AND the union members, they would serve a much more useful function and be more accepted as beneficial in general. By shielding crappy employees from consequences, unions have significantly hurt their own credibility and image.

 

[mizzou]

We need to remove the laws protecting cops from financial and criminal responsibility

Those laws exist for the same reason good Samaritan laws exist. If you destroy that, then you destroy all legal protection for people who act in good faith but end up completely fucking up. The end result will be a nation so hesitant to do anything due to legal liability that people will literally sit and do nothing.

Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated.[1] The protection is intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. An example of such a law in common-law areas of Canada: a good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for wrongdoing. Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions should they make some mistake in treatment.[2] By contrast, a duty to rescue law requires people to offer assistance, and holds those who fail to do so liable.

I don't think it's possible to make cops lose the same protection that everyone else has. I just don't see how that would work out. To me, if you get rid of good faith, that will only hurt the vast majority of people who use that as a shield to act in a responsible and sometimes pivotal way to save lives.

I certainly understand your concerns though... I mean, if you see this as a shield for criminal activity, why not remove the shield and expose it? This isn't a shield designed to do that though and it's a really important thing for everyone to have.

 

[Blackjack200]

Those laws exist for the same reason good Samaritan laws exist. If you destroy that, then you destroy all legal protection for people who act in good faith but end up completely fucking up. The end result will be a nation so hesitant to do anything due to legal liability that people will literally sit and do nothing.

Yes, and professional responders are not covered by good Samaritan laws for the very same reason that cops should not be protected from liability.

"Acting in good faith" is not a defense for a doctor that injects the wrong drugs, and it should not be a defense for a cop that kills or maims someone.

I don't think it's possible to make cops lose the same protection that everyone else has. I just don't see how that would work out. To me, if you get rid of good faith, that will only hurt the vast majority of people who use that as a shield to act in a responsible and sometimes pivotal way to save lives.

I certainly understand your concerns though... I mean, if you see this as a shield for criminal activity, why not remove the shield and expose it? This isn't a shield designed to do that though and it's a really important thing for everyone to have.

No, it's not. It's important that they don't have it. It's important that the people we arm and task with protecting the public are held to a higher standard than the general public. It is astounding to me that anyone would think otherwise.

 

[cabri]

Without the legal protection; the police would have to adjust for second guessing and will be unable to take chances that doing they job entails that a civilian would not attempt to take.

Violent crimes would not be intervened because if anyone was hurt; there would be no protection from civil/criminal actions

 

[Meghan54]

Yes, and professional responders are not covered by good Samaritan laws for the very same reason that cops should not be protected from liability.

Actually, in almost every state, the standard for that is anyone with any professional health care education/training, such as an LPN, RN, MD, etc., is not covered under the Good Samaritan Law, if it exists in that particular state. That's one reason trained people in health care carry lots 'n' lots of liability insurance. I carried $2M back in the 1980's when I became an RN. (Some states make it illegal for a health care professional to bypass a scene of an accident without checking if someone needs help....SC is one of those states, or was in the '90s.)

 

[Blackjack200]

Without the legal protection; the police would have to adjust for second guessing and will be unable to take chances that doing they job entails that a civilian would not attempt to take.

Violent crimes would not be intervened because if anyone was hurt; there would be no protection from civil/criminal actions

What are you talking about? Be specific. Non-police don't have that protection and intervene to stop violent crimes.

 

[fskimospy]

Police aren't covered by good samaritan laws, they are covered by 'qualified immunity'.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

This ends up meaning that when a police officer hurts you or whatever, you can't sue them unless they did something really egregious. You can still sue their employer (the city or whatever) though.

 

[cabri]

What are you talking about? Be specific. Non-police don't have that protection and intervene to stop violent crimes.

Police go into harms way; partly because they have the legal protection.

Civilians do not stick their noses into things and do not have the legal protection if someone gets hurt as a result of their intervening

 

[PokerGuy]

Yes, and professional responders are not covered by good Samaritan laws for the very same reason that cops should not be protected from liability.

Cops are protected from personal liability for the same reason DA's are protected from liability in their job: if you didn't have it, nobody in their right mind would want to do the job. Would you take a job where literally every one of the interactions you had during your workday could very possibly place you in court with your entire life and al your savings on the line? ... especially considering the nature of police work where there are often decisions/choices that need to be made in a split second? A job where you are sometimes interacting with the worst elements of society?

Yeah, that's not going to happen. Without qualified immunity the police could not do their job.

Police aren't covered by good samaritan laws, they are covered by 'qualified immunity'.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

This ends up meaning that when a police officer hurts you or whatever, you can't sue them unless they did something really egregious. You can still sue their employer (the city or whatever) though.

Makes perfect sense. The only part where it seems to break down is that the departments don't always care about paying out on settlements because they just go back to the taxpayer for more funding. There's not always a direct (painful) impact that would be an incentive for the department to clean up their act.

 

[Blackjack200]

Cops are protected from personal liability for the same reason DA's are protected from liability in their job: if you didn't have it, nobody in their right mind would want to do the job. Would you take a job where literally every one of the interactions you had during your workday could very possibly place you in court with your entire life and al your savings on the line? ... especially considering the nature of police work where there are often decisions/choices that need to be made in a split second? A job where you are sometimes interacting with the worst elements of society?

Yeah, that's not going to happen. Without qualified immunity the police could not do their job.

That's not exceptional at all. We expect professionals to execute their jobs properly and we absolutely do punish them if they don't. Doctors can go to jail for malpractice, if an engineer certifies a building plan and the building collapses, that engineer can go to jail.

People do their jobs every day under the pressure that if they are incompetant or negligant, they will be punished for it. Why should police be any different in that regard?

 

[PokerGuy]

Why should police be any different in that regard?

Because of the nature of their work. You can dispute it all you want, but the reality is without qualified immunity there would be no police. Every state has recognized this and has some sort of immunity statute(s). If you feel the officer did something wrong or was negligent, you can sue his/her employer.

As I asked in my previous post, would you (or anyone) take a job for which you are not paid much, in which you deal with some very bad/dangerous people, where you are charged with enforcing the law using force if needed if your entire financial life was on the line with every interaction? I think not.

 

[Exophase]

Fire every last one of them with a BMI over 30 too, there is no excuse for obese police officers. Your job is to be in shape and if you can't stay in shape, go eat donuts on your own dollar.

I'd support (much) more stringent physical fitness requirements but BMI under 30 isn't a good universal standard. A fairly (but not necessarily extremely) muscular person in very good shape could fail that.

 

[holden j caufield]

so much power they actually ignored and turned their backs to their boss, the mayor of NYC, did a work stoppage and none were punished. If you turned your back to your boss and decided to call in sick or just show up and not do your work you'd be fired in any field.

 

[Darwin333]

Wow, I'm shocked that the national review doesn't like unions.

Systemic police violence exists all over the country, regardless of whether or not the police in a particular area are part of a larger union. The policies are the problem. The thing nobody wants to admit is that plenty of people are unwilling to change those policies, the National Review no doubt among them.

It is kind of hard to gloss over the fact that police unions are by and far the largest hurdle in holding police accountable and changing those policies. Look at how they are fighting bodycams in some cities, even going as far as to ban them in their contracts. The police unions have by and large been the policy makers or at least the huge driving force behind them. They "negotiate" things like officers have 72 hours and must be shown all video evidence before they give a statement after they shoot and kill someone. Could you imagine giving the same thing to normal people? "Mr John, we see you shot your neighbor Joe. There was a security camera across the street, you have 3 days to review all the evidence, including the video, and then give us your reason for shooting Joe. Thanks, see you again in 3 days, have a nice night".

To make matters worse, no politician wants to piss off the police unions. Hell when Scott Walker went after all public unions in his state he specifically excluded the police union. If you get on their bad sign they can and will seriously hurt you politically, labeling you "soft on crime". Finally, the very last thing a city wants is a police strike yet that threat is there and it flat out shouldn't be. The entire city is not put at risk when GM workers strike and GM has competitors. If the police strike, there is no other entity that can immediately come in and do their jobs which is why we should at the very least completely revoke any public sector unions ability to strike or hold the public hostage in any way. Frankly public sector unions as a whole need to go in my opinion because by definition the public can't effectively negotiate with the public but I'd be happy with just removing most of their teeth.

 

[Darwin333]

Those laws exist for the same reason good Samaritan laws exist. If you destroy that, then you destroy all legal protection for people who act in good faith but end up completely fucking up. The end result will be a nation so hesitant to do anything due to legal liability that people will literally sit and do nothing.

I'm willing to take that risk. Why is everyone so scared about cops having a little personal responsibility? The good faith laws should still protect them or be amended to protect them, we are talking about times that they did not act in good faith.

I don't think it's possible to make cops lose the same protection that everyone else has. I just don't see how that would work out. To me, if you get rid of good faith, that will only hurt the vast majority of people who use that as a shield to act in a responsible and sometimes pivotal way to save lives.

We don't want to get rid of good faith laws, we want to get rid of blanket laws that protect cops when they act in "bad faith". What exactly is the harm in that? They still get a judge and jury which is already tilted hugely in their favor.

I certainly understand your concerns though... I mean, if you see this as a shield for criminal activity, why not remove the shield and expose it? This isn't a shield designed to do that though and it's a really important thing for everyone to have.

It IS being used for that though and it must be fixed if we are to see change. I don't think it's nearly as hard of a fix as everyone makes it out to be either.

 

[holden j caufield]

Aren't doctors interacting with the public everyday and don't they run the risk of being sued for lots of money. I don't think doctors have unions and they are held liable, thus they carry insurance. Should police be held liable and thus carry insurance. A guy with a spotless record pays small premiums vs a habitual person who keeps getting accused pays a much higher premium. After enough bad behavior no one will insure them and you cost/benefit no longer makes it possible for him to be an officer.

 

[Linux23]

agreed. when they can cover up murder they have to much power

they can do it because they have leverage. a dead man can't speak. or if they can, the police has more leverage than the average joe. can you ever refute the info of a police officer?

go to court for a ticket.

 

[mizzou]

Because of the nature of their work. You can dispute it all you want, but the reality is without qualified immunity there would be no police. Every state has recognized this and has some sort of immunity statute(s). If you feel the officer did something wrong or was negligent, you can sue his/her employer.

As I asked in my previous post, would you (or anyone) take a job for which you are not paid much, in which you deal with some very bad/dangerous people, where you are charged with enforcing the law using force if needed if your entire financial life was on the line with every interaction? I think not.

Either way its a moot point. Qualified immunity doesn't exist if it is found the person acted negligently anyway. So removing it really doesn't even matter, unless someone wants police to be held liable in every instance, even the ones where there is no reason to believe they acted with negligence.

 

[mizzou]

Aren't doctors interacting with the public everyday and don't they run the risk of being sued for lots of money. I don't think doctors have unions and they are held liable, thus they carry insurance. Should police be held liable and thus carry insurance. A guy with a spotless record pays small premiums vs a habitual person who keeps getting accused pays a much higher premium. After enough bad behavior no one will insure them and you cost/benefit no longer makes it possible for him to be an officer.

Some do, that's what the police unions are there for. They will represent a cop when their department won't, because they pay them extra $ out of their own pocket. Kind of like having your own personal attorney except it's group funded.

 

[pcgeek11]

I agree with you guys. Get rid of All of the Unions.

 

[Darwin333]

Cops are protected from personal liability for the same reason DA's are protected from liability in their job: if you didn't have it, nobody in their right mind would want to do the job. Would you take a job where literally every one of the interactions you had during your workday could very possibly place you in court with your entire life and al your savings on the line? ... especially considering the nature of police work where there are often decisions/choices that need to be made in a split second? A job where you are sometimes interacting with the worst elements of society?

Just to be perfectly clear, you are against personal accountability? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[touchstone]

I'd support (much) more stringent physical fitness requirements but BMI under 30 isn't a good universal standard. A fairly (but not necessarily extremely) muscular person in very good shape could fail that.

Recently there was an article that showed LEO's to have the highest incidence of obesity of ANY profession. Over 40% of cops are OBESE... not overweight but obese. That is incredible, considering what their supposed job is. Thankfully for them, serving and protecting were long ago thrown out in favor of harassing, ticketing, and beating people. You can be very fat and still beat somebody if you have a taser 5 fat buddies to help you.


You are correct that a person in OK shape could theoretically have a BMI over 30, but it would be a situation where the guy would have to have a massive amount of muscle. More stringent fitness requirements are a must, I honestly think much of the reason cops are so quick to use weapons to slow a criminal down is that they have no ability to catch them otherwise.


I have a BMI of 19.3 and have roughly 10% body fat, and I work out for over an hour every single day. Why can't the cops meet even basic fitness standards when I can maintain this?

 

[mizzou]

I agree with you guys. Get rid of All of the Unions.

I think it should be perfectly normal to go through waves of organized and deorganized labor. At least in the USA, the leadership of unions has shown that they are essentially useless forms of bureaucracy or an empty shell of what they once were. Sometimes unions still exist literally as a figurehead with no real power.

We are clearly going through a deorganization period (as seen specifically in Wisconsin). At some point, workers will find the need to be organized again and you will see the rise of organized labor.

 

[Linflas]

Works for me so long as we get rid of ALL public sector unions.

 

[mizzou]

Recently there was an article that showed LEO's to have the highest incidence of obesity of ANY profession. Over 40% of cops are OBESE... not overweight but obese. That is incredible, considering what their supposed job is. Thankfully for them, serving and protecting were long ago thrown out in favor of harassing, ticketing, and beating people. You can be very fat and still beat somebody if you have a taser 5 fat buddies to help you.


You are correct that a person in OK shape could theoretically have a BMI over 30, but it would be a situation where the guy would have to have a massive amount of muscle. More stringent fitness requirements are a must, I honestly think much of the reason cops are so quick to use weapons to slow a criminal down is that they have no ability to catch them otherwise.


I have a BMI of 19.3 and have roughly 10% body fat, and I work out for over an hour every single day. Why can't the cops meet even basic fitness standards when I can maintain this?

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/the-jobs-with-the-highest-obesity-rates/359849/

I don't think it's fair to put "security guards" in there with cops.