9 ms·
> investigators determined Bradley had violated State Police policies, and he was suspended for one day.
by medler 5mo ago
> investigators determined Bradley had violated State Police policies, and he was suspended for one day.
- RankingMember 5mo agoComically limp self-punishment- this is why police unions need broad reform.
- pbhjpbhj 5mo agoWould police unions vote to strike to support a trooper who stole a laptop? If so, then I think you've got police problems, not police unions problems.
- jimz 5mo agoBack in 2019 the police in Fresno stole a bunch of rare coins during a search of a house where the warrant did not cover anything like said coins, valued at $125,000, by reporting that they seized $50,000 when they actually took twice that much in cash and the coins. The 9th Circuit ended up deciding that while it was obviously morally wrong, qualified immunity applied because there's clearly established case law that stealing property that was specifically targeted for a search does violate the Constitution, because there's no analogous case regarding property stolen by police that the police did not know was there and are not covered by the warrant, there's no clearly established violation of the 4th Amendment even though it is literally an unlawful seizure of property. Supreme Court denied cert, allowing the decision to stand. I wish I was joking. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-16756/17-16756-2019-09-04.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17...
- wyldfire 5mo agoPlease, please tread on me.
- ryandrake 5mo agoDespite how the USA barely pretends to be egalitarian, there is 100% an importance totem pole, with billionaires and businesses on the top, then politicians, the police, the military, religious leaders all somewhere in the middle in some order, and then the rest of the population on the very bottom. Any fight between these cohorts will be decided based on where they are on the totem pole, not based on the law, the Constitution, or what's right.
- pear01 5mo agoQualified immunity is a stain on American jurisprudence and an insult to the idea of America as a free society. Demand of people who want your vote in the coming elections that they support a legislative correction to this judicial activism. This country was founded in large part because 250 years ago the British sent soldiers into American cities and American homes, with powers to detain, arrest and deprive of life and liberty with no accountability. If a colonial was wrongly treated they would force adjudication in favorable courts back in Britain, effectively making their soldiers immune from accountability. The fact our judicial system has saw fit to independently replicate this injustice that none of us voted for is a crime against the very notion of what it means to be an American. Hold your leaders accountable.
- ImPostingOnHN 5mo agoPolice Unions engaged in collective action beyond striking to support other police who shoved a senior citizen to the ground and gave him brain damage, so stealing is nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_police_shoving_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_police_shoving_inciden...
- gruez 5mo agoThat's seemingly contradicted, or at least cast in doubt by your own article: >The Buffalo police union, the Buffalo Police Benevolent Association, was angered by the suspensions of the two officers, and it retaliated on June 5 by withdrawing its legal fees support for any other Buffalo officers for incidents related to the protests. [...] All 57 police officers from the Buffalo Police Department emergency response team resigned from the team, although they did not resign from the department.[45] According to the police union's president, the mass resignations were a show of solidarity with the two suspended officers.[46] However, his account has been contradicted by two of the resigned officers, who stated they resigned because of a lack of legal coverage. One of these officers said "many" of the 57 resigned officers did not resign to support the two suspended officers.[47]
- wat10000 5mo agoEither the officers resigned in protest, or the union withdrew legal support in protest and the officers resigned as a result of that. Either way, the resignations were a result of union support for the criminals in their ranks.
- ImPostingOnHN 5mo agoThat only seems to confirm what I wrote? >The Buffalo police union, the Buffalo Police Benevolent Association, was angered by the suspensions of the two officers, and it retaliated on June 5 by withdrawing its legal fees support for any other Buffalo officers for incidents related to the protests. Why do you think the union withdrew legal support here, given that the union supported the officers?
- spenczar5 5mo agoNo, but they go on strike when negotiating their collective contracts, and put terms in the contract that govern how failures like this are investigated and punished.
- fusslo 5mo agoApologies if I misread/misinterpreted you, but police can't (generally) strike in the USA. Most states have a specific laws against police and firefighters from going on strike. Federal law enforcement cannot strike edit: a source (I assume lawyers.com is reputable..) https://legal-info.lawyers.com/labor-employment-law/wage-and-hour-law/when-is-going-on-strike-illegal.html https://legal-info.lawyers.com/labor-employment-law/wage-and...
- cogman10 5mo agoIt's not legal, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. See "Blue flu" for cases where cops coordinate a strike using sick leave. Another way they strike is by simply not doing their job. They'll just sit in their cars all day and won't respond or will severely delay response to dispatch. AFAIK, those cops never get a ATF style house cleaning.
- mindslight 5mo agoOh no, they still strike. It's just one of the other definitions: "to engage in battle. to make a military attack."
- ImPostingOnHN 5mo agoWho's gonna arrest them? Who would enforce a civil judgement against them?
- coryrc 5mo agoIt's an AND. The union is why administrations can't get rid of the problem employees. In Seattle, the police are "quiet quitting" (traffic ticketing is down 8x over ~10 years ago) and literally committing fraud and getting away with it (an officer on his second time falsely applying over 24 hours of work in a day, just had to return the pay for that week. There's STILL not computerized time tracking...)
- Aurornis 5mo agoUnions strike primarily for collective bargaining purposes. They use the bargaining to set contract terms that restrict how people can be fired. A union member who gets in trouble can leverage union resources and representation to protect themselves. One of my family members did a term as a union rep. He was getting really frustrated with some of the little claims that union members wanted to use the union to protect themselves from, but it was part of the job. Fortunately for him there wasn’t a serious incident like this to deal with during his term.
- jagged-chisel 5mo ago> … claims that union members wanted to use the union to protect themselves from ... One could argue that as litigious as US society has become, it makes sense to find out what resources are available when you’re the target of a grievance. Further, since we are also a society of specialists, one should consult a specialist when one is the target of aforementioned grievances.
- Aurornis 5mo agoIt wasn't really that complicated. It was a lot of stories about someone getting caught doing something like time card fraud or even unarguable sexual harassment and then desperately trying to avoid consequences for their own actions.
- pbhjpbhj 5mo agoI'm in a union. My dad has been a union rep (different union), so I know a bit. There is no way my colleagues would go out on strike to protect me if I stole anything. And that's absolutely right. Nor would I expect my union to go into bat for me, after anything like that was proven; nor for anything immoral. Mad. Unions are there to make sure you're treated fairly, not to shield members from consequences when they act immorally/illegally.
- fn-mote 5mo agoI agree with you on moral grounds, but I have some stories. > Nor would I expect my union to go into bat for me, after anything like that was proven Sure, but one of the jobs of the rep is to prevent it from being proven that you are guilty. Also, there would be no need to strike, because the union has negotiated the bureaucratic processes that will be followed when you do something wrong. Following the usually slow process will let you look for ways to escape, including the company not properly filing paperwork within the allotted time. Source: union steward's stories.
- dacops 5mo agoPolice need reform. Police unions need to go entirely. Police unions exist primarily to prevent police from consequences of their abuses of power. The State doesn't need unions to protect itself from its citizens.
- SilverElfin 5mo ago[flagged]
- forrestthewoods 5mo agoGood point. I accept your terms.
- lotsofpulp 5mo agoTeachers don’t have guns, and the ability to tie you up in the courts or worse.
- gruez 5mo agoSure, that makes the case for reform stronger for police unions, but why should bad union behavior (ie. protecting criminal or incompetent members) be tolerated at all?
- fwip 5mo agoBecause the freedom of association is a core principle of the American constitution. Curtailing that freedom should be a measure of last resort.
- gruez 5mo ago>Curtailing that freedom should be a measure of last resort. This just feels like it turns into a cudgel against whatever groups you hate. Bad police unions? Boo! Let's ban them! Bad teacher unions? Free association is protected by the constitution so they get a pass. Catholic priests? On one hand they're consistently hated on by progressives, but on the other hand much of the arguments that can be used to defend them can be applied to teachers.
- wotsdat 5mo ago[dead]
- DonHopkins 5mo agoDefuck the police!
- rationalist 5mo agoI disagree with the other trendy slogans, but yours is one I can definitely get behind!
- riffic 5mo agothere's a pretty well known saying about all cops and it's never been proven wrong.
- parineum 5mo agoThat's a funny thing because, as with all absolutes, it's trivially easy to prove it wrong. All you need is _one_ cop to not be a bastard to prove it wrong. I've known several non-bastard cops.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- fredophile 5mo agoThere's another relevant saying about apples you should check out.
- kennywinker 5mo agoIf you work alongside bastards, like civil-rights-violating bastards not chew-with-your-mouth-open bastards, and aren’t actively working to get them removed from the force - i’ve got bad news about your bastard status. Which is the point of the saying. It’s not that all cops are individually bastardly, it’s that all cops are part of a system that both protects bastards regularly, and does systemically bastardly things (like say heavily policing crimes of poverty while ignoring crimes of wealth).
- pc86 5mo agoI'd have to go through a decent chunk of the dictionary before I started referring to people who chew with their mouth open as "bastards." > systemically bastardly things (like say heavily policing crimes of poverty while ignoring crimes of wealth) I'm the last person I would expect to be defending police, but I think if you look at the rate of physical and property violence perpetrated by "crimes of poverty" vs. "crimes of wealth" that might have a lot more to do with it than the cop trying to decide if the victim has money or not before they do anything.
- Danox 5mo agoThe Union has nothing to do with it, it is systemic corruption.
- estimator7292 5mo ago[dead]
- pc86 5mo agoI don't want to blow your mind but the union is part of the system. A pretty central part, actually.
- HDThoreaun 5mo agoThe one day suspension was 100% because of union protections.
- hack1312 5mo agoThis is why ACAB
- SilverElfin 5mo agoWe need to remove immunity for everyone. Cops, judges, politicians. Otherwise the most justice you get is taking money from taxpayers with a lawsuit, rather than from the corrupt people doing the crime.
- teiferer 5mo agoAnd you'll end up with no reasonable person wanting to do those jobs becausr any day any bs complaint or lawsuit could cost you your livelihood, no thanks.
- someguyiguess 5mo agoThat's a false dichotomy. Those aren't the only two options.
- Zigurd 5mo agoColorado has no qualified immunity for cops. Are they short of cops?
- Barbing 5mo agoReally! Are there any downsides?
- jimz 5mo agoIt's symbolic since these cases broadly speaking need to be adjudicated in federal court for the most part and the federal law doesn't mention any immunities, it's a court-created doctrine. But neither the court nor congress thinks it's urgent enough of an issue, the last time a bill had support it ended up with around 70 cosponsors and it adds nothing but affirms that the law is applied as written and didn't get a vote, during the short period of tri-partisanship in 2020, because nbd it only accounts for 3-4 billion dollars of money that is taken from those who aren't able to be charged with any crime and redistributed to cops around the country in a sort of slush fund fashion, chump change if you consider how much debt we're running for... god knows what at this point. When you speak in trillions and can simply handwave that sort of deficit away, a few billion eventually sounds trivial, I'm guessing.
- delfinom 5mo agoHe violated the policy of turning off devices that can be tracked off before stealing them.
- alex_young 5mo agoDoesn’t say one way or the other, but probably suspended with pay. That’s typical. It’s like a free vacation day.