5 ms·

Even though liberals will deny this, the main issue here is that police unions are completely out of control and have this kind of power. The Independent Police

Even though liberals will deny this, the main issue here is that police unions are completely out of control and have this kind of power. The Independent Police Review Authority is full of union stooges, ex-cops, etc and is designed to protect cops. The real question is when will we start having the political will to question public sector unions? They seem to only make city services more expensive, more corrupt, and in the case of cops, lead to legalized murder. Decent piece on how this board and the union work to protect bad cops. You just can't expect the police to police themselves. http://www.wbez.org/news/who-polices-police-chicago-its-increasingly-ex-cops-111194 http://www.wbez.org/news/who-polices-police-chicago-its-incr... Now a WBEZ investigation raises questions about just how independent the agency is. City records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show that IPRA’s management now includes six former cops — officials who have spent most of their career in sworn law enforcement. Those include the agency’s top three leaders.

mingus68040 11y ago
>"Even though liberals will deny this..." This blanket assumption is probably why you're being down-voted. The easiest way to avoid this is by supporting your statements with as many facts as possible. A simple google search proved that this is not at all the case, for example, and that Republicans show much stronger support of police unions. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/12/the-gop-and-police-unions-a-love-story.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/12/the-gop-and... This selective support among Republicans suggests that you're addressing the wrong crowd.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  It will be very hard to pin the problems with Chicago on Republicans.
  - digitalneal 11y ago
    Are you saying Governors have no power over the cities that reside in their state? From 1977 to 2003 Republicans were in control of Illinois executive office. 26 years in a row. From 1972 to 1991, Jon Burge running the show as Chicago police commander. Are you trying to say that Republican governors had no power to investigate/curtail the evil that was brewing under his leadership? hehe.
    - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
      They have very little. The CPD is managed by the city which is under Democratic machine politics rule.
      - lvh 11y ago
        If you're downvoting, is it because of the "machine politics" expression, or because the person's point is invalid? It seems like a valid counterpoint to the statement that the CPD was not, in fact, influenced by the Republican governor.
  - mingus68040 11y ago
    I think you're replying to the wrong comment? drzaiusapelord was the poster who suggested that partisan views would be a barrier to reform. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a lack of political opposition in any circumstance, regardless of the party itself, will lead to anti-democratic behavior. The real issue is that police overwhelmingly enjoy an uncritical view by the voting public such that no politician can afford not to support them. What needs to disappear is the misplaced support for police among the public.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  This is Chicago, we really have no republicans in power. The downvotes are just knee-jerk stupidity because the MSM doesn't report much on union abuse and unions largely get a free pass in the US for political reasons. Democrats won't go after them as they more or less pay for Democratic campaigns.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - rosser 11y ago
    ...just knee-jerk stupidity... You aren't helping yourself.
  - slantyyz 11y ago
    As a non-American, I find it interesting how so many Americans (especially online commenters) refer to other Americans only as liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican these days. Is America that polarized? Or, are the people with more complex views (i.e., having both liberal and conservative viewpoints) just less likely to speak out?
    - rosser 11y ago
      Yes, and yes. America is that polarized, and when people with more nuanced views speak up, they tend to get shouted down immediately by the "side" that sees some aspect of "the other side"'s views in the nuance, drowning them out in the noise. Want to make a nuanced point in a discussion about gun control? You're probably from Kenya, too. Want to make a subtle distinction in a debate about investment banks, or energy policy? You must hate poor people, or the planet, or... Net, we (or at least I) tend not to get involved in political discussions, as I'm almost invariably going to have to spend more time arguing about how I'm not actually a filthy lib'ral or whatever, than about the point I'd wanted to make in the first place, so fuck it. You guys have fun shouting yourselves hoarse and slapping yourselves on the back for how hateful you can be towards random strangers on the internet.
      - 11y ago
frandroid 11y ago
Police unions are a special kind of thuggish killer-protection union, I would not lump them in with the rest of public sector unions.
- saosebastiao 11y ago
  I would, even if other public sector unions don't result in a physical war on the public. All public sector unions have the same imbalance of power as police unions: they have the power to withhold vital public services, the very reason we accept the problems with government as an institution, and they do it for personal gain. If a Kellogs plant goes on strike, I can still buy cereal from Post. If a transit union goes on strike, 10% of the city can't get to work. Unions are a collusion power that we accept as a counterbalance to the collusion power that businesses have over us. Why would we ever give government the power to collude against us?
  - frandroid 11y ago
    Yeah, but if a unionized bus driver runs you over, their union is not going to come out and say bullshit like "he threw himself under the bus" or "drivers should be allowed to drive over threatening pedestrians". There's a difference between public sector unions going on a legal strike (or even a wildcat strike!) and police /breaking the law to the point of killing people that had no business getting killed by cops, and getting supported in doing so/.
- rayiner 11y ago
  E.g. teachers' unions are subject to the same basic dynamic. The only difference is that the fallout from protecting bad teachers is usually not fatal.
mikeash 11y ago
I'm always impressed when people make cogent points, but then go out of their way to ensure nobody listens by gratuitously insulting most of their audience.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
CPLX 11y ago
I see no problem with having a police union who considers it their job to aggressively advocate for their membership. That's what unions are for, and frankly most types of workers would be better off with an organization on their side who would advocate tirelessly for them. I also think accused criminals should have an organization that advocates for them. We can call them public defenders. And so on. The problem isn't that there is a police union, or even that it's an effective or powerful one, it's that the union should not be in the business of overseeing misconduct investigations, except in a clearly understood adversarial role as an advocate for the accused. You can throw out insults to liberals and insert your preconceived bias against public sector unions all you want if it serves your political agenda, but at the end of the day nobody rational is arguing in favor of this system, liberals especially so.

mingus68040 11y ago

>"Even though liberals will deny this..." This blanket assumption is probably why you're being down-voted. The easiest way to avoid this is by supporting your statements with as many facts as possible. A simple google search proved that this is not at all the case, for example, and that Republicans show much stronger support of police unions. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/12/the-gop-and-police-unions-a-love-story.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/12/the-gop-and... This selective support among Republicans suggests that you're addressing the wrong crowd.

happyscrappy 11y ago
It will be very hard to pin the problems with Chicago on Republicans.
- digitalneal 11y ago
  Are you saying Governors have no power over the cities that reside in their state? From 1977 to 2003 Republicans were in control of Illinois executive office. 26 years in a row. From 1972 to 1991, Jon Burge running the show as Chicago police commander. Are you trying to say that Republican governors had no power to investigate/curtail the evil that was brewing under his leadership? hehe.
  - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
    They have very little. The CPD is managed by the city which is under Democratic machine politics rule.
    - lvh 11y ago
      If you're downvoting, is it because of the "machine politics" expression, or because the person's point is invalid? It seems like a valid counterpoint to the statement that the CPD was not, in fact, influenced by the Republican governor.
- mingus68040 11y ago
  I think you're replying to the wrong comment? drzaiusapelord was the poster who suggested that partisan views would be a barrier to reform. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a lack of political opposition in any circumstance, regardless of the party itself, will lead to anti-democratic behavior. The real issue is that police overwhelmingly enjoy an uncritical view by the voting public such that no politician can afford not to support them. What needs to disappear is the misplaced support for police among the public.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
This is Chicago, we really have no republicans in power. The downvotes are just knee-jerk stupidity because the MSM doesn't report much on union abuse and unions largely get a free pass in the US for political reasons. Democrats won't go after them as they more or less pay for Democratic campaigns.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- rosser 11y ago
  ...just knee-jerk stupidity... You aren't helping yourself.
- slantyyz 11y ago
  As a non-American, I find it interesting how so many Americans (especially online commenters) refer to other Americans only as liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican these days. Is America that polarized? Or, are the people with more complex views (i.e., having both liberal and conservative viewpoints) just less likely to speak out?
  - rosser 11y ago
    Yes, and yes. America is that polarized, and when people with more nuanced views speak up, they tend to get shouted down immediately by the "side" that sees some aspect of "the other side"'s views in the nuance, drowning them out in the noise. Want to make a nuanced point in a discussion about gun control? You're probably from Kenya, too. Want to make a subtle distinction in a debate about investment banks, or energy policy? You must hate poor people, or the planet, or... Net, we (or at least I) tend not to get involved in political discussions, as I'm almost invariably going to have to spend more time arguing about how I'm not actually a filthy lib'ral or whatever, than about the point I'd wanted to make in the first place, so fuck it. You guys have fun shouting yourselves hoarse and slapping yourselves on the back for how hateful you can be towards random strangers on the internet.
    - 11y ago

frandroid 11y ago

Police unions are a special kind of thuggish killer-protection union, I would not lump them in with the rest of public sector unions.

saosebastiao 11y ago
I would, even if other public sector unions don't result in a physical war on the public. All public sector unions have the same imbalance of power as police unions: they have the power to withhold vital public services, the very reason we accept the problems with government as an institution, and they do it for personal gain. If a Kellogs plant goes on strike, I can still buy cereal from Post. If a transit union goes on strike, 10% of the city can't get to work. Unions are a collusion power that we accept as a counterbalance to the collusion power that businesses have over us. Why would we ever give government the power to collude against us?
- frandroid 11y ago
  Yeah, but if a unionized bus driver runs you over, their union is not going to come out and say bullshit like "he threw himself under the bus" or "drivers should be allowed to drive over threatening pedestrians". There's a difference between public sector unions going on a legal strike (or even a wildcat strike!) and police /breaking the law to the point of killing people that had no business getting killed by cops, and getting supported in doing so/.
rayiner 11y ago
E.g. teachers' unions are subject to the same basic dynamic. The only difference is that the fallout from protecting bad teachers is usually not fatal.

mikeash 11y ago

I'm always impressed when people make cogent points, but then go out of their way to ensure nobody listens by gratuitously insulting most of their audience.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

CPLX 11y ago

I see no problem with having a police union who considers it their job to aggressively advocate for their membership. That's what unions are for, and frankly most types of workers would be better off with an organization on their side who would advocate tirelessly for them. I also think accused criminals should have an organization that advocates for them. We can call them public defenders. And so on. The problem isn't that there is a police union, or even that it's an effective or powerful one, it's that the union should not be in the business of overseeing misconduct investigations, except in a clearly understood adversarial role as an advocate for the accused. You can throw out insults to liberals and insert your preconceived bias against public sector unions all you want if it serves your political agenda, but at the end of the day nobody rational is arguing in favor of this system, liberals especially so.