7 ms·

NYPD needs to be disbanded. If you have officers repeating the same conduct one just got charged with depraved heart murder for, it's out of control. This stuf

NYPD needs to be disbanded. If you have officers repeating the same conduct one just got charged with depraved heart murder for, it's out of control. This stuff is simple enough. Get out of your escort, stand among the other normal people and do some dogfooding of the police experience. I guess nobody higher up wants to spend the day doing that, because at the end of it there wouldn't be anyone still employed at NYPD.

kw71 12y ago
When they expressed insubordination by turning their backs on the Mayor, that signalled to me that they have no respect for authority. This is exactly the kind of people that do not belong on a police force. I can't imagine why they weren't all fired. They certainly don't deserve any of the respect that they get, nor their pensions.
- icelancer 12y ago
  What? They are allowed to express their right to free speech and expression as well, just as the protestors should be able to.
  - privong 12y ago
    Yes, they should be free to express their opinions. But free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. One could make a case that that sort of behavior could be considered insubordination and grounds for termination.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - agwa 12y ago
      > Yes, they should be free to express their opinions. But free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. That's bad analysis. Free speech means freedom from government-imposed consequences, and since their employer is the government, being fired would be a government-imposed consequence. (For the same reason, public universities cannot discipline students for their protected speech.) Rather, the correct reason these cops should be fired is because they legally do not have the right of free speech when in uniform - see my other comment up-thread.
      - privong 12y ago
        Fair enough, my analysis wasn't sufficiently specific. I agree that gov't employees should be free from government-imposed consequences if they are critizing policy. In contrast directly disregarding one's boss, while working in an official capacity, should not necessarily be free from government-imposed consequences (i.e., that should be a sanctionable offense). Obviously there's a divding line betwen the two, so it depends where that line is drawn (and where one places the actions of those officers on that spectrum).
  - mapt 12y ago
    There are limits. You probably wouldn't object to a police officer being fired when it's discovered they have 5,000 posts on Stormfront expressing solidarity for their Aryan brothers in their struggle against multicultural impurity. These police officers expressed contempt in an organized, planned way for anyone who would hold police officers accountable for murders committed on the job. They essentially declared that they expect 100% support from their boss in the executive branch, no matter the illegality of their conduct, and committed to staging a standing strike in protest, and to publicly shunning their boss at a funeral. It's a power play that a nation of rights & laws cannot permit, if it wants to remain one. You know what? We can find other people to be police officers. Ones which aren't so abusive of the people they're supposed to be serving, and so privileged to a lack of consequences for this abuse, that they're on the edge of a coup against the elected civilian government.
    - Hobotron1 12y ago
      > We can find other people to be police officers. Can we though? I sure as shit don't want to be one.
      - Snesker 12y ago
        They don't want you, you're probably too smart. http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/sto...
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        simplexion 12y ago
        Feels good to be too intelligent to be a Cop in the USA.
    - chrismcb 12y ago
      I most certainly would object to firing a police officer who had a ton if posts. As long as it didn't interfere with his duty as a police officer.
  - HarryHirsch 12y ago
    Are you serious? Members of the police force are prevented from to expressing their opinion while in uniform, they are sworn to duty. If they do it anyway, that way lie the Freikorps of the Weimar Republic. As the grandparent says, these guys need the equivalent of a dishonourable discharge.
    - vacri 12y ago
      Yes, a peaceful, static protest by simply facing the other way while uniformed but off the clock - at a funeral for a colleague - is totally the basis of a new Nazi state and the tens of millions of deaths it caused.
  - kw71 12y ago
    What would you expect would happen to you if you made such a brazen, public display of disrespect against your executive management? Would you have your job after? They certainly could have gone on strike, when they were not on the clock.
    - mc32 12y ago
      They have strong unions. That allows them lots of things regular workers don't get. Unionized workers get these kinds of benefits --not that I agree with unions, as I think they are past their expiration date, but the strong ones provide great extra-work related benefits. Similarly longshores get pretty sweet benefits too.
      - spiritplumber 12y ago
        Dock work is pretty backbreaking - I'm in favor of people who do that year round, rather than four weeks to make some extra cash for the summer one time like I did, getting good pensions and good health care. You only have one spine and it's gotta last you a lifetime.
        danieltillett 12y ago
        It was 50 years ago - now it involves a lot of cranes and comfortable seats.
        spiritplumber 12y ago
        It involves a couple of cranes and a lot of moving stuff that's too light to justify bringing the crane over but still seriously heavy, at least where I was (Italy).
        danieltillett 12y ago
        I don’t think there is too much non-containerized goods coming in through the major US ports these days. Handling goods via small ports are still back-breaking work around the world though.
  - agwa 12y ago
    Legally, they do not have the right of free speech when in uniform. See Garcetti v. Ceballos: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6711908971660042297&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6711908971660042... And as a matter of principle, they should not. When in uniform, a police officer is not a private person, who has rights, but rather a representative of the government, which does not have rights, but authority delegated to it by the people. Further reading, from an actual lawyer: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/10/18/ferguson-revenge-of-officer-keith-novara/ http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/10/18/ferguson-revenge-of-...
    - eru 12y ago
      > And as a matter of principle, they should not. When in uniform, a police officer is not a private person, who has rights, but rather a representative of the government, which does not have rights, but authority delegated to it by the people. Oh, they still have rights when in uniform. Eg at the most basic, the right not to be killed. But you are right about the free speech. Just like any other employee in their capacity as an employee, only more so.
    - vacri 12y ago
      Neither of your links support your case. In the first link, the case is about a memo written as part of the employee's role; a uniform is irrelevant (district attorneys don't wear uniforms, and the word 'uniform' is mentioned zero times in the document). In the second link, the article explicitly states: "Wearing a badge doesn’t forfeit the free speech of the person". It's abundantly clear that these police turning their backs on the mayor at a funeral over a political stoush between the parties are not acting as voices of the government. No reasonable person would even remotely think that the police turning their back on the mayor is 'what the government message is'. Those police are clearly not 'speaking' in an official government capacity (and literally are not speaking at all). I have no great love for the police, but the correct path forward is a fair view, not a knee-jerk 'fire them all on principle'. This thread is full of knee-jerk hysteria, but the irony is that so many people are calling for an end to multiple people's careers because, while not on duty, the were literally standing still while facing the incorrect direction. Ironic because it's supposedly a reaction against undue application of power, and yet the punishment for facing the wrong way is termination, regardless of whether or not that officer has abused power elsewhere.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - woah 12y ago
    Since when does the first amendment keep you from being fired when you publicly insult the ceo?
  - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
    Try walking up to your boss and telling him he's a worthless fuckhead, then claim free speech when you get fired. Free speech does not insulate you from reasonable consequences of that speech.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Every single one of those officers should have been fired on the spot. I'm no fan of de Blasio, but he's the democratically elected mayor of New York. Turning your back to him is turning your back to the people who elected him.
  - harryh 12y ago
    Ignoring for the moment that the union certainly wouldn't allow such firings this also seems like a 1st amendment issue. What does the court have to say about expressions of speech in this context?
    - trhway 12y ago
      The 1st doesn't protect from firing when you trash your employer in public. It protects your trashing, not employment :)
      - harryh 12y ago
        The first amendment doesn't apply to my employer as I work for a private company, so you are right there. But is that true for cops who work for the government? I'm honestly not sure.
        lambda 12y ago
        When you are on the job for the government, you are acting as a government representative and not a private person. You can be fired for what you say while on the job. However, the police unions would never allow such a thing.
        harryh 12y ago
        First of all, we aren't even talking about the police saying anything out loud. We're talking about them turning their backs on the mayor while at a funeral which, while not verbal speech, is clearly a form of expression that would fall under the 1st amendment. Second, I suspect that a majority of the officers in question were not on the job while attending that funeral.
- pcurve 12y ago
  Calling it insubordination is too generous. Turning their backs on their mayor in such setting is downright juvenile. It shows level of deep rooted rotten mob mentality that permeates the force.
- vacri 12y ago
  I can't imagine why they weren't all fired It seems peculiar to American discourse that wrongdoing in a job should be countered by firing rather than retraining or reform. Anyway, police departments generally have a hard enough time already finding and keeping staff. Firing them en masse requires replacing them en masse. Who polices the city while you're looking for and training a heap of new recruits?
  - woah 12y ago
    Remember when they stopped making arrests for a little while after that incident... and everything was fine?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
AnkhMorporkian 12y ago
Two officers supposedly do this, so therefore the NYPD needs to be disbanded? There's plenty wrong with the NYPD, but that doesn't follow at all.
- revelation 12y ago
  I guess it's just two bad apples then.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
joshkpeterson 12y ago
Your comment provoked a lot of discussion here, but no one's mentioned the more alarming behavior during that time: changing arrest patterns as a form of protest.

kw71 12y ago

When they expressed insubordination by turning their backs on the Mayor, that signalled to me that they have no respect for authority. This is exactly the kind of people that do not belong on a police force. I can't imagine why they weren't all fired. They certainly don't deserve any of the respect that they get, nor their pensions.

icelancer 12y ago
What? They are allowed to express their right to free speech and expression as well, just as the protestors should be able to.
- privong 12y ago
  Yes, they should be free to express their opinions. But free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. One could make a case that that sort of behavior could be considered insubordination and grounds for termination.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - agwa 12y ago
    > Yes, they should be free to express their opinions. But free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. That's bad analysis. Free speech means freedom from government-imposed consequences, and since their employer is the government, being fired would be a government-imposed consequence. (For the same reason, public universities cannot discipline students for their protected speech.) Rather, the correct reason these cops should be fired is because they legally do not have the right of free speech when in uniform - see my other comment up-thread.
    - privong 12y ago
      Fair enough, my analysis wasn't sufficiently specific. I agree that gov't employees should be free from government-imposed consequences if they are critizing policy. In contrast directly disregarding one's boss, while working in an official capacity, should not necessarily be free from government-imposed consequences (i.e., that should be a sanctionable offense). Obviously there's a divding line betwen the two, so it depends where that line is drawn (and where one places the actions of those officers on that spectrum).
- mapt 12y ago
  There are limits. You probably wouldn't object to a police officer being fired when it's discovered they have 5,000 posts on Stormfront expressing solidarity for their Aryan brothers in their struggle against multicultural impurity. These police officers expressed contempt in an organized, planned way for anyone who would hold police officers accountable for murders committed on the job. They essentially declared that they expect 100% support from their boss in the executive branch, no matter the illegality of their conduct, and committed to staging a standing strike in protest, and to publicly shunning their boss at a funeral. It's a power play that a nation of rights & laws cannot permit, if it wants to remain one. You know what? We can find other people to be police officers. Ones which aren't so abusive of the people they're supposed to be serving, and so privileged to a lack of consequences for this abuse, that they're on the edge of a coup against the elected civilian government.
  - Hobotron1 12y ago
    > We can find other people to be police officers. Can we though? I sure as shit don't want to be one.
    - Snesker 12y ago
      They don't want you, you're probably too smart. http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/sto...
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - simplexion 12y ago
        Feels good to be too intelligent to be a Cop in the USA.
  - chrismcb 12y ago
    I most certainly would object to firing a police officer who had a ton if posts. As long as it didn't interfere with his duty as a police officer.
- HarryHirsch 12y ago
  Are you serious? Members of the police force are prevented from to expressing their opinion while in uniform, they are sworn to duty. If they do it anyway, that way lie the Freikorps of the Weimar Republic. As the grandparent says, these guys need the equivalent of a dishonourable discharge.
  - vacri 12y ago
    Yes, a peaceful, static protest by simply facing the other way while uniformed but off the clock - at a funeral for a colleague - is totally the basis of a new Nazi state and the tens of millions of deaths it caused.
- kw71 12y ago
  What would you expect would happen to you if you made such a brazen, public display of disrespect against your executive management? Would you have your job after? They certainly could have gone on strike, when they were not on the clock.
  - mc32 12y ago
    They have strong unions. That allows them lots of things regular workers don't get. Unionized workers get these kinds of benefits --not that I agree with unions, as I think they are past their expiration date, but the strong ones provide great extra-work related benefits. Similarly longshores get pretty sweet benefits too.
    - spiritplumber 12y ago
      Dock work is pretty backbreaking - I'm in favor of people who do that year round, rather than four weeks to make some extra cash for the summer one time like I did, getting good pensions and good health care. You only have one spine and it's gotta last you a lifetime.
      - danieltillett 12y ago
        It was 50 years ago - now it involves a lot of cranes and comfortable seats.
        spiritplumber 12y ago
        It involves a couple of cranes and a lot of moving stuff that's too light to justify bringing the crane over but still seriously heavy, at least where I was (Italy).
        danieltillett 12y ago
        I don’t think there is too much non-containerized goods coming in through the major US ports these days. Handling goods via small ports are still back-breaking work around the world though.
- agwa 12y ago
  Legally, they do not have the right of free speech when in uniform. See Garcetti v. Ceballos: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6711908971660042297&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6711908971660042... And as a matter of principle, they should not. When in uniform, a police officer is not a private person, who has rights, but rather a representative of the government, which does not have rights, but authority delegated to it by the people. Further reading, from an actual lawyer: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/10/18/ferguson-revenge-of-officer-keith-novara/ http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/10/18/ferguson-revenge-of-...
  - eru 12y ago
    > And as a matter of principle, they should not. When in uniform, a police officer is not a private person, who has rights, but rather a representative of the government, which does not have rights, but authority delegated to it by the people. Oh, they still have rights when in uniform. Eg at the most basic, the right not to be killed. But you are right about the free speech. Just like any other employee in their capacity as an employee, only more so.
  - vacri 12y ago
    Neither of your links support your case. In the first link, the case is about a memo written as part of the employee's role; a uniform is irrelevant (district attorneys don't wear uniforms, and the word 'uniform' is mentioned zero times in the document). In the second link, the article explicitly states: "Wearing a badge doesn’t forfeit the free speech of the person". It's abundantly clear that these police turning their backs on the mayor at a funeral over a political stoush between the parties are not acting as voices of the government. No reasonable person would even remotely think that the police turning their back on the mayor is 'what the government message is'. Those police are clearly not 'speaking' in an official government capacity (and literally are not speaking at all). I have no great love for the police, but the correct path forward is a fair view, not a knee-jerk 'fire them all on principle'. This thread is full of knee-jerk hysteria, but the irony is that so many people are calling for an end to multiple people's careers because, while not on duty, the were literally standing still while facing the incorrect direction. Ironic because it's supposedly a reaction against undue application of power, and yet the punishment for facing the wrong way is termination, regardless of whether or not that officer has abused power elsewhere.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- woah 12y ago
  Since when does the first amendment keep you from being fired when you publicly insult the ceo?
- PhasmaFelis 12y ago
  Try walking up to your boss and telling him he's a worthless fuckhead, then claim free speech when you get fired. Free speech does not insulate you from reasonable consequences of that speech.
rayiner 12y ago
Every single one of those officers should have been fired on the spot. I'm no fan of de Blasio, but he's the democratically elected mayor of New York. Turning your back to him is turning your back to the people who elected him.
- harryh 12y ago
  Ignoring for the moment that the union certainly wouldn't allow such firings this also seems like a 1st amendment issue. What does the court have to say about expressions of speech in this context?
  - trhway 12y ago
    The 1st doesn't protect from firing when you trash your employer in public. It protects your trashing, not employment :)
    - harryh 12y ago
      The first amendment doesn't apply to my employer as I work for a private company, so you are right there. But is that true for cops who work for the government? I'm honestly not sure.
      - lambda 12y ago
        When you are on the job for the government, you are acting as a government representative and not a private person. You can be fired for what you say while on the job. However, the police unions would never allow such a thing.
        harryh 12y ago
        First of all, we aren't even talking about the police saying anything out loud. We're talking about them turning their backs on the mayor while at a funeral which, while not verbal speech, is clearly a form of expression that would fall under the 1st amendment. Second, I suspect that a majority of the officers in question were not on the job while attending that funeral.
pcurve 12y ago
Calling it insubordination is too generous. Turning their backs on their mayor in such setting is downright juvenile. It shows level of deep rooted rotten mob mentality that permeates the force.
vacri 12y ago
I can't imagine why they weren't all fired It seems peculiar to American discourse that wrongdoing in a job should be countered by firing rather than retraining or reform. Anyway, police departments generally have a hard enough time already finding and keeping staff. Firing them en masse requires replacing them en masse. Who polices the city while you're looking for and training a heap of new recruits?
- woah 12y ago
  Remember when they stopped making arrests for a little while after that incident... and everything was fine?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

AnkhMorporkian 12y ago

Two officers supposedly do this, so therefore the NYPD needs to be disbanded? There's plenty wrong with the NYPD, but that doesn't follow at all.

revelation 12y ago
I guess it's just two bad apples then.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

joshkpeterson 12y ago

Your comment provoked a lot of discussion here, but no one's mentioned the more alarming behavior during that time: changing arrest patterns as a form of protest.