3 ms·

> "The police are doing naughty things"... dude... they're on the mayor's orders. The chief can be instantly booted out by the mayor. It's not quite that strai

by rtkwe 6y ago

> "The police are doing naughty things"... dude... they're on the mayor's orders. The chief can be instantly booted out by the mayor. It's not quite that straight forward. The police have powerful buttons to push to influence the mayor through as well; strikes, blue flu, media, etc. On top of that the mayor is constrained by the union contracts as to what they can demand the police do.

luckylion 6y ago
Isn't that like saying "the President really has no ability to stop the military from invading a country, sure, he's the Commander In Chief, but they have powerful buttons to push ..."?
- scarface74 6y ago
  The difference is that the military has a long history and culture of respecting the rules and not being outright defiant of civilian control whether or not they agree with them. The military doesn’t have a powerful union that protects bad members. In fact, when Trump pardoned someone who was convicted by a military tribunal, the military brass was livid.
- pjc50 6y ago
  When that happens, it's a military coup. Some people argue that the extent to which police can intimidate local government has almost reached the same level; there are all sorts of recent examples. e.g. Doxing a councilwoman after which her neighbour was raped in her home as a possible mistaken identity attack: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8498489/Oklahoma-city-councilor-says-neighbor-raped-two-cops-posted-address-online.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8498489/Oklahoma-ci...
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    Well, no, a military coup would be if the military invaded their own country. Invading a different country is something else.
    - rtkwe 6y ago
      It's still the military ignoring, which in effect deposes. the legal civilian government. It could be nonviolent but that'd require the whole military (and in the US probably the National Guard of each state) to go along with it. A coup is just "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." invading another country without orders from the President definitely satisfies 2 of those conditions regardless of how smoothly it goes inside the country.
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        > A coup is just "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." invading another country without orders from the President definitely satisfies 2 of those conditions regardless of how smoothly it goes inside the country. It may be violent and illegal, but it fails the key criterion of being a seizure of power from the government. The government remains in power.
        rtkwe 6y ago
        Only partially, one of the principal powers of the government is making war. That power is seized in this scenario.
        thaumasiotes 6y ago
        Nonsense. By your definitions, anyone committing any crime has accomplished a coup. A coup is deposing the government and installing yourself in its place. That's what "seizing power" means here.
        rtkwe 6y ago
        I'm willing to say there's a distinction in kind between a person committing a crime and the entire military going on an adventure without authorization.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  No not really because the president has direct legal authority over the military. Mayors do not directly control police, they're bound very tightly by strong police union contracts for starters as to what they have to do to even fire an officer. Also if the military did decide to just go around ignore the President there's not much he could actually do, it happens often enough in other countries we have a name for it... a military coup.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    There's a difference in firing an officer and setting policy though. It's quite normal in most countries that you can't randomly fire employees ("at-will employment" is very rare, globally), but that doesn't mean the employees are free to do whatever they please. And when they break rules, they can very much be fired. Mayors can set policy, but it's easier to have the police to their bidding while simultaneously say how terrible it is what the police are doing. Can't blame them, it's politics, but you don't need to fall for it and assume that police unions run the country with politicians as their puppets.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > And when they break rules, they can very much be fired. Not if you're a cop. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/police-fired-rehired/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/... > A San Antonio police officer caught on a dash cam challenging a handcuffed man to fight him for the chance to be released was reinstated in February. In the District, an officer convicted of sexually abusing a young woman in his patrol car was ordered returned to the force in 2015. And in Boston, an officer was returned to work in 2012 despite being accused of lying, drunkenness and driving a suspected gunman from the scene of a nightclub killing. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-police-unions-keep-abusive-cops-on-the-street/383258/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-pol... > "In Philadelphia, an inquiry was recently completed on 26 cases where police officers were fired from charges ranging from domestic violence, to retail theft, to excessive force, to on duty intoxication," Adam Ozimek writes in a Forbes article on reforms to policing. "Shockingly, the Police Advisory Committee undertaking the investigation found that so far 19 of these fired officers have been reinstated. Why does this occur? The committee blamed the arbitration process." This guy got reinstated: > In June 2008, after downing six drinks as part of his wife's birthday celebration on the South Side, Paul Abel was accused of accidentally shooting a 20-year-old man he was trying to pistol-whip.

by rtkwe 6y ago

luckylion 6y ago

Isn't that like saying "the President really has no ability to stop the military from invading a country, sure, he's the Commander In Chief, but they have powerful buttons to push ..."?

scarface74 6y ago
The difference is that the military has a long history and culture of respecting the rules and not being outright defiant of civilian control whether or not they agree with them. The military doesn’t have a powerful union that protects bad members. In fact, when Trump pardoned someone who was convicted by a military tribunal, the military brass was livid.
pjc50 6y ago
When that happens, it's a military coup. Some people argue that the extent to which police can intimidate local government has almost reached the same level; there are all sorts of recent examples. e.g. Doxing a councilwoman after which her neighbour was raped in her home as a possible mistaken identity attack: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8498489/Oklahoma-city-councilor-says-neighbor-raped-two-cops-posted-address-online.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8498489/Oklahoma-ci...
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  Well, no, a military coup would be if the military invaded their own country. Invading a different country is something else.
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    It's still the military ignoring, which in effect deposes. the legal civilian government. It could be nonviolent but that'd require the whole military (and in the US probably the National Guard of each state) to go along with it. A coup is just "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." invading another country without orders from the President definitely satisfies 2 of those conditions regardless of how smoothly it goes inside the country.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > A coup is just "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." invading another country without orders from the President definitely satisfies 2 of those conditions regardless of how smoothly it goes inside the country. It may be violent and illegal, but it fails the key criterion of being a seizure of power from the government. The government remains in power.
      - rtkwe 6y ago
        Only partially, one of the principal powers of the government is making war. That power is seized in this scenario.
        thaumasiotes 6y ago
        Nonsense. By your definitions, anyone committing any crime has accomplished a coup. A coup is deposing the government and installing yourself in its place. That's what "seizing power" means here.
        rtkwe 6y ago
        I'm willing to say there's a distinction in kind between a person committing a crime and the entire military going on an adventure without authorization.
rtkwe 6y ago
No not really because the president has direct legal authority over the military. Mayors do not directly control police, they're bound very tightly by strong police union contracts for starters as to what they have to do to even fire an officer. Also if the military did decide to just go around ignore the President there's not much he could actually do, it happens often enough in other countries we have a name for it... a military coup.
- luckylion 6y ago
  There's a difference in firing an officer and setting policy though. It's quite normal in most countries that you can't randomly fire employees ("at-will employment" is very rare, globally), but that doesn't mean the employees are free to do whatever they please. And when they break rules, they can very much be fired. Mayors can set policy, but it's easier to have the police to their bidding while simultaneously say how terrible it is what the police are doing. Can't blame them, it's politics, but you don't need to fall for it and assume that police unions run the country with politicians as their puppets.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > And when they break rules, they can very much be fired. Not if you're a cop. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/police-fired-rehired/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/... > A San Antonio police officer caught on a dash cam challenging a handcuffed man to fight him for the chance to be released was reinstated in February. In the District, an officer convicted of sexually abusing a young woman in his patrol car was ordered returned to the force in 2015. And in Boston, an officer was returned to work in 2012 despite being accused of lying, drunkenness and driving a suspected gunman from the scene of a nightclub killing. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-police-unions-keep-abusive-cops-on-the-street/383258/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-pol... > "In Philadelphia, an inquiry was recently completed on 26 cases where police officers were fired from charges ranging from domestic violence, to retail theft, to excessive force, to on duty intoxication," Adam Ozimek writes in a Forbes article on reforms to policing. "Shockingly, the Police Advisory Committee undertaking the investigation found that so far 19 of these fired officers have been reinstated. Why does this occur? The committee blamed the arbitration process." This guy got reinstated: > In June 2008, after downing six drinks as part of his wife's birthday celebration on the South Side, Paul Abel was accused of accidentally shooting a 20-year-old man he was trying to pistol-whip.