This is not usually the case. They are public sector employees, and are therefore subject to whatever limits their employer has placed upon them, usually the state version of the Hatch Act or something similar. And that’s every employee, not just the police.
The simple fact is that when you accept a public sector job, when you become an employee of the government, you are not permitted to publicly undermine the elected officials of said government with impunity. Oh, they have the absolute right to say whatever they wish, but they are not free from the consequences of what they say.
The only two things that would prevent DeBlasio from firing them all outright tomorrow if he had the inclination to do so would be the lack of replacements and certain conditions for termination almost certainly written into the collective bargaining agreement between the police and the city. Their 1st Amendment rights do not protect them (or you, for that matter) from termination.
I said no, and no to those questions.
So, to respond to your most recent post in context:
I think police officers in uniform at an official function should be disciplined as is appropriate to their rules of conduct. I think acting like childish cunts during a funeral for their comrade is sickening, and that they shouldn’t throw a tantrum while in uniform. If there is no requirement of them to act suitably while in uniform, then they shouldn’t be disciplined. But I’d change that rule.
That is not the same thing as teachers protesting in an appropriate setting. I understand that you were crafting an analogy, and they are never perfect, but in this case, they aren’t similar enough for you to claim hypocrisy on my part.
I would say you were wrong in that you crafted a flawed analogy. But you are correct that I think that uniformed police at a public function should be expected to behave in a respectful manner. Much as I said that the hypothetical soldiers that John Mace spoke of should be punished. I understand that police don’t have the same limitations as the US military. But I am assuming that while in uniform a certain level of decorum is expected.
If they were in uniform, I think they should be disciplined as is reasonable for their code of conduct, because being in uniform suggests it is an action that is in their capacity as a cop. I would have no problem if they were in civilian clothes with picket signs.
I think you were mistaken, in that your hypothetical concerned teachers and Christie. And to question if I support firing people for striking.
Both of which don’t really have any bearing on a bunch of uniformed police at a funeral acting like twats.
I agree with Lobohan that part of the issue here is that in the US cops can, and do, stay in uniform while off-duty (the part about getting second-jobs based on having the uniform boggles me completely).
A worker on duty insulting a superior, not acceptable. A worker off duty stating (preferably in a way which doesn’t involve insults) that he disagrees with a superior, acceptable. But the “off-duty but in uniform” thing blurs the lines. The protesting teachers were demonstrating while off duty; were the cops turning their backs on their boss on duty or off? And if off, why were they in uniform? Why do your cops wear clothes that say “I’m a cop” at those times when they are not at work, when they are private citizens? If an off-duty cop arrests someone while in uniform, does it count as a citizen’s arrest, or as a regular one? And if he’s not in uniform? Does it change if he’s plainclothes? All those questions aren’t even thinkable for those of us who are used to “in uniform = on duty”.
That whole line of thinking is a problem, though. Sure, it’s insulting when someone implies you are racist. But showing contempt for the other person rather than introspection is a bad idea. Most of the time there is a valid interpretation of what you did or said that is racist, even if that’s not what you meant.
And I think a lack of introspection is correlated with being racist. Everyone is naturally somewhat racist, and it takes introspection to fix that.
I’ve been using Reddit a lot lately. Reddit has this nice built in feature where you can easily see everything someone has ever posted. I’ve gotten to the point where, when I see a problematic poster there, I go back and look at their previous comments to see if they are a troll. And the one thing I’ve noticed is that, when someone freaks out about being called “racist,” I go back and find a lot of potentially racist things that they have said. When someone stops to explain themselves, however, this is much less common. And when they apologize, I’ve never seen them have other racist comments.
And those are direct claims of racism. This is an implication that has been made for years that is pretty much accepted. It has data to back it up, in that black people are overrepresented in arrests. The talk is about a systemic issue, not a personal one. Nobody in particular is being accused.
And people who take claims of systemic racism personally also tend to be racist. Systemic racism has the obvious out that you personally don’t have to be racist. If you think it must mean you are racist, then the implication is that you think you might be racist.
As for what should happen to the cops? I don’t know. It’s a hard problem. I don’t want drones that have to follow what their boss says at all times, even offduty, but I also don’t think people who show public mass contempt can effectively do their jobs. And I do not think the problem is the mayor’s fault.
If you are considering insubordination to be only not following a direct order - than it isn’t, but when used - it often includes other related forms of misconduct.
I couldn’t find the NYPD manual online, but another New York State law enforcement agency defines insubordination as:
I think it is obviously disrespectful and would meet this definition - and even if it didn’t - there are usually plenty of other rules it could fall under. Note in the manual I posted - even discourteous behavior is not allowed.
In that manual - a cursory glance suggests they would have violated section 4.1, 4,2, 4.11, and 4.13 - of course that assumes that the NYPD has similar regulations - which I’d be willing to bet they do.
Police are not some separate fourth branch of government - they fall under the executive branch - and under the civil authority of the Mayor or Governor where they operate. Their job is to implement his/her policies as well as State (and sometime local) law.
If the public is to have trust in a police force - they have to have confidence that his orders will be followed - even if they don’t like them. How is the public supposed to trust that these police will make a good faith effort to implement the reforms he is attempting to make - if they can see they don’t respect him at all?
I don’t really have any idea how many people this was - and I’m not naive enough to say fire them all, but if the cops who did this are so beholden to the Police Union that they have no respect for command - then I would expect if two somewhat similarly qualified candidates are up for promotion - those that have showed some loyalty should get preference.
Oh and there is that whole origin of the word “decimate”. Apparently this isn’t the first time that someone was faced with a similar dilemma. It was a form of punishment in Roman times where every tenth person would be executed.
I think we should stop short of execution - and even firing might be a bit much. Especially if they have done this with other mayors without consequence. Tensions are pretty high right now - but this type of behavior is unacceptable - and someone needs to start somewhere. Luckily that isn’t my job.
Trying to take advantage of this for political purposes is disgusting. The mayor was there by the permission of the family of the slain officer. If the cops outside don’t want the mayor at their funeral - they are free to have their families do what they want. To organize a protest to embarass the mayor who is attempting to make reforms (and to attempt to prevent him from doing so) is about as unprofessional you can get without committing a crime.
I’m not one that thought that “the cops got away with murder” in the recent non indictment cases, but this is ridiculous (spare me the “oh you think killing someone is ok, but turning their back is where you draw the line?”).
A segment of the police have proven themselves to be loyal only to themselves and not any outside check, balance, or authority - they needed to be weeded out and shit like this fixed.
I think the idea that the mayor has wronged these cops is ridiculous, but the outrage here make the eyes role. So they maybe dissed the boss. He can get over it.
The real problem is not so much that a segment of the police are loyal only to themselves. That would be bad enough , but there is absolutely no way that such a large proportion of people were of one mind regarding either the mayor or the appropriateness of displaying their displeasure at a funeral. In such a large group, there were certainly some officers who agree with the mayor about the need for change and some who did disagree with the mayor but didn’t think it was appropriate to make the funeral about their issues with the mayor. I’m certain there were out of state officers who didn’t know enough about the situation in NYC to have formed their own opinion. Yet to all appearances, they all turned their backs. There is only one reason I can think of for that to happen- they feared the consequences of not joining in more than they feared the consequences of turning their backs. And that’s how you end up with a police department that is probably 80% or more good cops having such a bad reputation- because rather than than the 80% putting pressure on the 20% to change, somehow the 20% is able to pressure the 80% to back them up, right or wrong.
Turning their backs ON A PROJECTED IMAGE OF THE MAYOR fits that description? That’s not at all clear to me. It’s not even clear if these cops were on duty, and keep in mind that many of them weren’t even NYPD-- cops from around the country were attending the funeral.
Would it be insubordination for a cop to turn his back on TV in the window of a Department Store that showed an image of the mayor?
While I appreciate your effort in digging up that cite, I still think we are a long way from proving that the cops involved were “insubordinate”. I think a lot of people here are relying on their emotional reaction to what the police did instead of understanding the facts when it comes to any disciplinary action merited.
As I said in my first post in this thread, I think the cops were wrong to politicize the funeral, and I think their taking the “circle the wagons” approach here beyond rationality.
Look, everyone always says, when police intervene with you, be very compliant, keep your hands where they can see them, don’t do a damn thing that could be misinterpreted. On that account the police union are just butthurt that he dared say out loud that this was his advice to his son, though he was saying it in order to tell the black community, “hey, my wife and children are black, I know how you feel, let me take care of it”; the police union, of course, feels there’s nothin’ to take care of.
Depends on the jurisdiction (and the US is of course a huge mess of decentralized overlapping jurisdictions). In many, whenever they are within their jurisdictional area they are legally “active” 24/7 even when not on-watch or in uniform, if they see anything wrong happening they can (and in some must) intervene with full authority; in others, it becomes a citizen’s arrest by a much better trained citizen whose version of events will be given much more credence. More generally, you are allowed to remain in uniform on your way to and from home in the hours before and after your watch as long as you are do not doing something or entering a place where it would be inappropriate (e.g. having beers and shots at the bar). Some police departments are more restrictive about use of the uniform off-duty, some less so.
In the US police or military practices it’s appropriate to be in uniform if participating in an official ceremony or institutional memorial (like a funeral) even if not on the clock (even if retired!), in order to represent that you are part of the organization, though not necessarily acting on behalf of it.
This last part which is what makes people uncomfortable, the perception that a group of officers in uniform represents some sort of *institutional *sanction, though of course, that is NOT necessarily so, but the perception can be created (and of course, the union welcomes that perception).
And among the people who perceive it this way, seeing the institution be more responsive to itself and its union leaders, than to its legal superiors and the will of the voters (who after all elected this sucker by a 73% landslide and he fuckin’ explicitly RAN on curbing police) creates worry.
That’s what I found offensive; the funeral of a murdered cop is about as non-political event as possible and it was wrong for the union and those officers to inject politics into the event.
Well, it worked out nicely for Coolidge during the Boston police strike. Maybe DeBlasio has similar presidential aspirations…
Seriously though, in no way is DeBlasio the police force’s boss in the way that the President is commander in chief of the armed forces. Police have a strong union - members of the military do not. There may well be code of conduct rules for police that these demonstrators violated, but that’s a matter for their bosses within the department to resolve (and good luck with wide-ranging sanctions).
Based on what we’ve seen so far, the Mayor is arguably not very supportive of police, nor of the communities that benefited from effective policing practices and lower crime rates under past administrations. There are however better and classier ways to show disapproval than turning your back on the current mayor at a funeral.
I’m sorry…I appear to have missed the reasoning on this. Exactly what did he say that led you to believe he’s not supportive of the police? Or is it that your definition of “supportive of the police” means indulging them in every whim?
The police arrested some protestors who they claim had attacked them physically. The mayor used the word “allegedly” when describing those protestors’ actions.
Isn’t the use of the word “allegedly” standard practice when describing possible criminal behavior that has not been legally adjudicated? Isn’t he, in fact, more or less required to do so?
It is. Apparently, from certain people’s point of view
means that deBlasio is using “allegedly” to describe the assault rather than the protesters and therefore is questioning whether the assault actually occurred. It’s perfectly possible to believe the assault in fact happened , but that the perpetrators are the “alleged perpetrators” until they are convicted. That construction is used all the time- when someone says that one person allegedly murdered another person, no one believes there’s any question about whether it was a murder or a natural death. Even when someone says “so-and-so was allegedly the victim of a homicide” , no one thinks the person speaking really doubts that there was a homicide. They were just being overly cautious about using the word allegedly and ended up using it where it wasn’t needed.
But to an awful lot of people, de Blasio never gets the benefit of the doubt regarding his meaning. Not only that , if it’s possible to misinterpret something he said they will go through any contortions necessary to do so.