3 ms·

Unions are supposed to support their members, and legally defend them. If it wasn't the union making this crazy request, it would be the cops' lawyers. And th

Unions are supposed to support their members, and legally defend them. If it wasn't the union making this crazy request, it would be the cops' lawyers. And that's not a bad thing. Proper legal defense is an extremely important and fundamental right, even for the people we dislike. Adequate legal defense is often how people end up needing to protect themselves from crooked cops. If this crazy request is honored, then something is broke.

nkurz 11y ago
There is a difference between supporting any illegal action committed by individual union members, and supporting the interests of the members as a whole. I'd think (hope?) that there is a degree of egregiousness where the union would realize that they are hurting the group as a whole by defending the corrupt individuals. By contrast, the defendants' lawyers are allowed to concern themselves only with their clients.
jMyles 11y ago
The difference is that we, as the taxpaying public, have no choice but to fund this organization (the "union") because our civic entity (the police force) is obliged to hire only from among its membership. I don't care what these cops or their privately-funded lawyers say. But I do care that I have to fund this idiocy.
logfromblammo 11y ago
Unions are supposed to act in accord with their own charters or constitutions. Unions are supposed to support the interests of their entire membership. The union could have, upon watching the video, expelled the cops seen in it for gross and egregious violations of the union's standards of professional conduct. The former members would still be able to use the collectively negotiated clauses in their contracts that protect them from unjust disciplinary actions. If the union does not have standards of professional conduct that would allow them to expel a cop for blatant, open, and notorious destruction of private property, unlawful conversion, spoliation of evidence, deprivation of rights under color of law, and grossly unprofessional and unethical conduct, why the heck would any county or municipality hire any of their members? Most unions can kick you out when shown good cause, including for actions that are neither illegal nor unethical, such as joining a competing union. This is probably something the union should have backed away from, as it makes their entire membership look like they support corruption in policing.
- danielweber 11y ago
  and supporting the interests of the members as a whole That is even more frightening. The union already has tremendous opportunity to negotiate for the rights of some members by giving up on the rights of other members. If it could pick and choose which cases were "really worth it" it would end up defending organizational insiders while declining to defend Joe Sixpack. One positive thing unions provide is that they provide a valuable way for workers to know about and exercise their legal rights. If different kind of organization were providing that benefit, it woulLd still be defending workers accused of bad things. "Even those accused of REALLY bad things?" Especially those accused of really bad thing
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    You are making this out to be an accusation, when it is, in fact, a public release of damning evidence. There is no dispute that the cops in the video did what they were recorded in doing. The argument is literally that the prosecutors should not consider the publicly available evidence when determining whether the cops should be charged with a crime. The union is not bound by the state's rules of evidence. It can make an independent assessment of the facts available to it and decide whether the union would be better served by keeping those guys in it and defending them to the last, or by cutting them loose and preserving its reputation for the remaining members. It is all down to the operating principles ensconced in its own articles of organization. What goes beyond the pale? If Joe Sixpack sat down and ate a live baby, feet first, and it was caught on video, which then went viral on YouTube, would the union still go to bat for him?

nkurz 11y ago

There is a difference between supporting any illegal action committed by individual union members, and supporting the interests of the members as a whole. I'd think (hope?) that there is a degree of egregiousness where the union would realize that they are hurting the group as a whole by defending the corrupt individuals. By contrast, the defendants' lawyers are allowed to concern themselves only with their clients.

jMyles 11y ago

The difference is that we, as the taxpaying public, have no choice but to fund this organization (the "union") because our civic entity (the police force) is obliged to hire only from among its membership. I don't care what these cops or their privately-funded lawyers say. But I do care that I have to fund this idiocy.

logfromblammo 11y ago

Unions are supposed to act in accord with their own charters or constitutions. Unions are supposed to support the interests of their entire membership. The union could have, upon watching the video, expelled the cops seen in it for gross and egregious violations of the union's standards of professional conduct. The former members would still be able to use the collectively negotiated clauses in their contracts that protect them from unjust disciplinary actions. If the union does not have standards of professional conduct that would allow them to expel a cop for blatant, open, and notorious destruction of private property, unlawful conversion, spoliation of evidence, deprivation of rights under color of law, and grossly unprofessional and unethical conduct, why the heck would any county or municipality hire any of their members? Most unions can kick you out when shown good cause, including for actions that are neither illegal nor unethical, such as joining a competing union. This is probably something the union should have backed away from, as it makes their entire membership look like they support corruption in policing.

danielweber 11y ago
and supporting the interests of the members as a whole That is even more frightening. The union already has tremendous opportunity to negotiate for the rights of some members by giving up on the rights of other members. If it could pick and choose which cases were "really worth it" it would end up defending organizational insiders while declining to defend Joe Sixpack. One positive thing unions provide is that they provide a valuable way for workers to know about and exercise their legal rights. If different kind of organization were providing that benefit, it woulLd still be defending workers accused of bad things. "Even those accused of REALLY bad things?" Especially those accused of really bad thing
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  You are making this out to be an accusation, when it is, in fact, a public release of damning evidence. There is no dispute that the cops in the video did what they were recorded in doing. The argument is literally that the prosecutors should not consider the publicly available evidence when determining whether the cops should be charged with a crime. The union is not bound by the state's rules of evidence. It can make an independent assessment of the facts available to it and decide whether the union would be better served by keeping those guys in it and defending them to the last, or by cutting them loose and preserving its reputation for the remaining members. It is all down to the operating principles ensconced in its own articles of organization. What goes beyond the pale? If Joe Sixpack sat down and ate a live baby, feet first, and it was caught on video, which then went viral on YouTube, would the union still go to bat for him?