Yes. That’s why I agreed with you that they will not be sanctioned.
No, I’m not-- not if you read just a few posts up:
You are intellectually dishonest. You are repeatedly bringing up a strawman. No one has ever argued there is a fucking quota. You are repeatedly refuting something no one said. Even if we grant everything you say, it has nothing to do with this conversation.
There is no quota to the number of sales my dad makes in a day. But if he suddenly started selling a lot less, after making a public statement about how he hated his boss, it would be reasonable for people to determine he is deliberately slacking as a form of protest.
And, in this case, doing that is against the law. Whether it is prosecuted or not is irrelevant. He brought a citation saying it is against the law for a cop to deliberately slow down their job as a form of protest. You have provided no counter-citation, just a bunch of strawmen about quotas which have nothing to do with anything whatsoever.
There is no “we will see.” If you want to argue honestly, provide evidence that the cops are not actually slowing down as a form of protest. If they are, it is against the law, no matter whether they are prosecuted or not.
Bringing up quotas as an attempt to shutdown the conversation is just a vagina move.
To quote the NY Times, “DO YOUR JOB”
Based on this definition it seems like calling this a strike is accurate. My mistake earlier.
It does seem like the Chief Executive Officer of the government (as defined in that link) is the police chief - or commissioner and that person is ultimately responsible for determining whether a strike has taken place.
Everyone claiming that “X%” reductions in certain arrests or citations proves this is a strike is claiming there is a quota. Without a quota, there would be no way to judge when “X” is an actionable number.
Well they are fucking dumb. The still see the protests as being an attack on them, when they are an attack on racism and police brutality. It’s not an attack on them unless they want to admit they are racist or unfairly brutal.
The whole thing would be resolved if they’d just put in a little effort to police themselves for this shit. If they aren’t doing anything wrong, that’s a fucking cakewalk.
They also were stupid enough to turn their back on the mayor, just ratcheting up tensions, to the point that the fucking head of police had to say they were wrong to do that. And there’s no love lost between him and the mayor.
So, yeah. Any argument based on the cops having to be intelligent is not one that I give much weight to. They have repeatedly misjudged this situation.
It honestly starts to feel like they need a Pope Francis to come in and clean them out.
Are you saying the concept of a slowdown (which we’ve established that under the relevant statute is a category of strike) is meaningless outside a quota system?
No, it’s not claiming a quota. If your job is to clean my house, and it suddenly takes you ten times as long, I’d be reasonable in thinking you’re dragging your feet.
Look at the quote I posted above. You don’t think that:
counts as slowing your work?
WTF? Sure there is. You look at how many tickets they used to write, and how many tickets they write now, and see if there’s a difference. You don’t need a quota system to do that.
How is that not a quota system? The quota is: “X% of last year’s number”. A quota does not have to be a fixed number.
They call them “performance goals” as a way of avoiding the illegal Q word.
I just think it’s irrelevant because there is no way the Mayor will try to enforce Taylor as it stands now. It’s happened before. They’ll be back in business next year no doubt, unless something else happens.
Your argument is absurd. On your logic, the police could reduce arrests by 100%, but as long as there’s no explicit quota greater than zero, they can’t be accused of a slowdown.
Well, it would appear that the quota is “less than 10x your normal time”.
I don’t know that it meets the legal definition. And neither you do you, if you’re honest about it. Neither of us is a legal expert, so as I look at things I’m thinking:
- A slowdown is not measured by how many arrests are made (especially for non violent crimes).
- I’ve never heard of legal action being taken against cops for doing something like this.
- I’m thinking that the informal (and this action is informal) leaders of this action are smart enough to know what he law is-- that is, more informed on the matter than you or I.
Now, if someone like Richard Parker comes in here and tells me I’m wrong, he’s going to have evidence to back that up. Not just his own personal opinion, but cited jurisprudence that demonstrates how such law work. All I’ve seen so far is the uninformed opinion of anonymous people on a message board, most of whom are heavily biased against the cops in this matter and want nothing more than to see action taken against them.
I think you’re right about that. And you could use “not meeting performance goals” as a means of determining promotions, but I don’t think you could use them for taking legal action against the cops.
So now John Mace is channelling doorhinge.
What, specifically, is incorrect about that post?
That you’re acting like Bricker. [batseyelashes]It’s just random chance that we’re doing less than 10% of the numbers from last year![/batseyelashes]
What does work slowdown mean, to you? Why is it in the code if it is utterly impossible? I mean, the cops could just leave one guy on the job and have the rest of them stand around. I mean, a 99.99999% decrease, that doesn’t mean anything, because we don’t have a quota.
You’re digging your heels in for no reason. You have to know you’re wrong, but you’re just gonna die on this hill because… why again?
Look. I certainly agree that the cops are not making arrest for certain low level crimes at anywhere near the normal level. I’m sure that most of them are doing it on purpose. But what I’m not sure of, and you shouldn’t be either, is whether this amounts to an illegal work slowdown, which is what you guys are claiming. Don’t kid yourself by thinking you can read the legal code and know how it’s applied. You can’t.
But, like I said, if you’re so certain you’re right, why can’t you show some evidence that this type of thing has been successfully prosecuted in the past*? If you can’t, then what makes you so sure you understand the legal code? Have you never been wrong in how you interpret it?
*I’ve spent quite a bit of time trying to find such an example, and have not found any. How much time have you spent?
Be careful. BigT will be along shortly to tell you that you are intellectually dishonest because you are arguing against a strawman. I never said it was impossible to enforce. I just said that I don’t think your method of enforcing it makes sense.
Jeez. What a total vagina move! 