4 ms·

Yes, but unions are normally protecting their employees from firing for professional misconduct. Police forces are protecting their members from being investig

by Pxtl 12y ago

Yes, but unions are normally protecting their employees from firing for professional misconduct. Police forces are protecting their members from being investigated for felonies. That's a little different. The only reason the police are investigated internally is because they happen to work in the same building that employs people who respond when you beat and/or murder someone.

rayiner 12y ago
I don't think your distinction makes sense. Police, by necessity, are empowered to do things that would otherwise be tortious or even criminal. The law insulates them from liability so long as they act within the bounds of professional responsibility. The police unions do the same thing teachers' unions or any other union do--protect members who don't act within the bounds of their professional responsibility.
- nraynaud 12y ago
  Interestingly in France it's not the case (except for sequestration), but a policeman using his weapon will be scrutinized with the same laws as citizen without any special presumption (I'm talking about the law itself, because like in the US, DA don't like to charge policemen). I think the police of the police is famous for being tough when an investigation starts, there is probably no bail if someone was killed. For a ticket, there is a presumption of truth from the policeman (you have to prove he's wrong), anything higher he's a witness or a defendant like the others (still only talking about the law, judges tend to believe policemen).
- glesica 12y ago
  > The police unions do the same thing teachers' unions or any other union do--protect members who don't act within the bounds of their professional responsibility. Yeah, we should get rid of public defenders to save a few bucks too. All those lousy public defenders defending poor people who commit crimes. Bastards.
  - nickff 12y ago
    I think that rayiner's issue with the police unions is not that they represent their clients (AKA members), and act to elucidate the events surrounding alleged misconduct. His issue (which also happens to be mine,) is that the unions use methods such as strikes and political means to avoid a full hearing of the facts, or any attempt at holding individuals responsible for their actions.
    - glesica 12y ago
      But now you're asking for an entirely different political and legal system. Not to say that I disagree, but in an adversarial system you do whatever you can to defend your client (members). If the other side isn't competent enough to counter you and make sure the truth comes out then that isn't your problem. Frankly, when the cops in NYC went on a "soft" strike a few months back nothing bad happened. That suggests that we have too many cops. But if the politicians and the people (because, by and large, the majority in many places want more cops, not less) don't have the guts to do what is right, then they get the police force they deserve.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        You don't need a different legal system. Just make police unions illegal, as the federal government has done for the military. That way, police will have to rely on private counsel or public defenders, just like everyone else.
        glesica 12y ago
        That's fine for cops (although then you've still got the problem that the legal system is heavily stacked against the poor), but I disagree that all unions are inherently bad (even for cops, the union could just be limited to salary and benefit and general work environment negotiations). If we're going to make all unions illegal, then we better start enforcing some pretty strong anti-collusion laws. Let's ban trade and industry associations for starters. It is an established fact that companies will collude against their workers, allowing workers to collude against companies does nothing but level the playing field.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

by Pxtl 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

I don't think your distinction makes sense. Police, by necessity, are empowered to do things that would otherwise be tortious or even criminal. The law insulates them from liability so long as they act within the bounds of professional responsibility. The police unions do the same thing teachers' unions or any other union do--protect members who don't act within the bounds of their professional responsibility.

nraynaud 12y ago
Interestingly in France it's not the case (except for sequestration), but a policeman using his weapon will be scrutinized with the same laws as citizen without any special presumption (I'm talking about the law itself, because like in the US, DA don't like to charge policemen). I think the police of the police is famous for being tough when an investigation starts, there is probably no bail if someone was killed. For a ticket, there is a presumption of truth from the policeman (you have to prove he's wrong), anything higher he's a witness or a defendant like the others (still only talking about the law, judges tend to believe policemen).
glesica 12y ago
> The police unions do the same thing teachers' unions or any other union do--protect members who don't act within the bounds of their professional responsibility. Yeah, we should get rid of public defenders to save a few bucks too. All those lousy public defenders defending poor people who commit crimes. Bastards.
- nickff 12y ago
  I think that rayiner's issue with the police unions is not that they represent their clients (AKA members), and act to elucidate the events surrounding alleged misconduct. His issue (which also happens to be mine,) is that the unions use methods such as strikes and political means to avoid a full hearing of the facts, or any attempt at holding individuals responsible for their actions.
  - glesica 12y ago
    But now you're asking for an entirely different political and legal system. Not to say that I disagree, but in an adversarial system you do whatever you can to defend your client (members). If the other side isn't competent enough to counter you and make sure the truth comes out then that isn't your problem. Frankly, when the cops in NYC went on a "soft" strike a few months back nothing bad happened. That suggests that we have too many cops. But if the politicians and the people (because, by and large, the majority in many places want more cops, not less) don't have the guts to do what is right, then they get the police force they deserve.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      You don't need a different legal system. Just make police unions illegal, as the federal government has done for the military. That way, police will have to rely on private counsel or public defenders, just like everyone else.
      - glesica 12y ago
        That's fine for cops (although then you've still got the problem that the legal system is heavily stacked against the poor), but I disagree that all unions are inherently bad (even for cops, the union could just be limited to salary and benefit and general work environment negotiations). If we're going to make all unions illegal, then we better start enforcing some pretty strong anti-collusion laws. Let's ban trade and industry associations for starters. It is an established fact that companies will collude against their workers, allowing workers to collude against companies does nothing but level the playing field.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]