National Fraternal Order of Police endorses Trump - Mask isn't just slipping it's being thrown away

[BigT]

@Loach

Overplays? You think? Sure assume everyone who supports Trump is a racist. That’s a good way to lose an election.

A professional organization endorses on the basis of who they think is better for their members not necessarily who will be the better president. Trump has made many pro-police statements. Whether he believes it or is pandering to his crowd I don’t know. Clinton has made anti-police statements. Whether she believes it or is pandering to her crowd I don’t know. It’s not too hard to figure out who they would endorse.

So you think the organization is doing what’s best for itself and not what’s best for the country? You just admitted to them being horrible people without morals. (Not that it makes sense–if he’s bad for the country, he’s inherently bad for your people.) This type of automatic defense is what makes people have problem trusting cops.

Yes, we assume Trump supporters are racist. Because Trump is openly racist, and a non-racist person can’t support an openly racist person. In this case, Trump specifically fights Black Lives Matter without any attempt to deal with the issues they have. Treating BLM like enemies instead of someone to work with actually increases the numbers of cops who will be harmed. That would be obvious to anyone who isn’t racist against them. Only a racist could think that they could beat the cause without addressing their concerns.

Authoritarianism and racism are two sides to the same coin. It is very rare to find an authoritarian who isn’t racist. An authoritarian stratifies society between those who have the authority and those who don’t. Minorities always get the shaft in any authoritarian system.

And Clinton has never said anything that is anti-cop. You really think the super calculated woman would say something anti-cop? No, she’s said what pretty much everyone in the country is saying about cops now–that there are some bad actors who are making things worse, and that there is a history of racial selection in enforcement–something established by actual investigations.

Last I checked, you were anti-Trump like the rest of us. So why in the world are you defending the very things that make him horrible?

[BigT]

@Corry_El

Teachers unions use all kinds of methods and pressure at their disposal to advance of the interests of their members as most of the members see it. It’s inherently the same for any union. I still don’t see any logic in deeming the FOP ‘bad’ in comparison to unions in a completely different situation by the nature of the job of their members. If you were to contrast various police orgs with different opinions about the BLM constellation of issues, I think you’d be on potentially firmer ground. Comparing police and teachers you can only reasonably say IMO you find the perceived self interest of most police less valid than the perceived self interest of most teachers, under the safe assumption their unions or ‘fraternal orgs’ will reflect member perception.

You’re glossing over the fact that those tactics are different. Teachers don’t get to refuse to to their job because someone said something mean about them. They don’t get to punish people under false charges in order to inconvenience them. (The equivalent being giving someone a bad grade for saying bad things about them.) And they sure as hell don’t support racist candidates because that candidate said something nice about teachers.

The reason why a police union is a bad idea is because police already have a ton of power. They don’t need a union that helps them out when they can just go arrest the guy who is inconveniencing them, just to let him go without any charges. They can just be slow to respond to anything in that guy’s neighborhood. They can hang around him and get him to incriminate himself by lying to him. And none of these things will get them in trouble, and most aren’t even illegal. Cops have no duty to defend the public.

Teachers basically have no power. They do have duties. They can’t strike. The ones with tenure could in theory do a lousy job teaching as a punishment, but, in practice, they take their duty to educate to be more important than that.

In short, teachers don’t use a lot of the more unseemly tactics that we see cops using.

And, no, this isn’t me being anti-cop. You don’t do this shit, then I have no problem with you. You do do this shit, then I do. I’ve seen cops reaching out to BLM. I’ve seen them sit there and take verbal abuse with no reaction. I’ve seen them defend the right to protest, or defend freedom of speech. There are tons of good cops out there.

I’m just pointing out that there is a comparison between the two types of unions, and cops come up lacking. Criticizing someone for the bad things they do is not the same thing as being anti-someone.

[HurricaneDitka]

@BigT

And Clinton has never said anything that is anti-cop.

You may not see some of her statements and actions as anti-cop, but plenty of police disagree (hence the endorsement).

[Hail_Ants]

@iiandyiiii

Feminism isn’t a “radical, fringe group”. For one thing, Hillary Clinton says she’s a feminist, and has never tried to deny it or avoid association with other prominent feminists. Trump has repeated and re-tweeted white supremacist rhetoric multiple times, but he’s usually (and tepidly) tried to avoid associating with open white supremacists.

Ahem, I said ‘radical feminist groups’. There are extreme versions of every view, and I’m talking about lesbo, all-marriage-is-rape, men-hating femi-nazis. I’m sure they support her, but there’s little she can do about it and it is not an example of a typical Hillary supporter. Those on the left however are quick to jingoistically consider pro-police groups (and Trump supporters in general) as racist rednecks.

@Wesley_Clark

40% of police officers abuse their families (compared to 10% of the general public). And many people who are dealt with by the police are low level criminals. Traffic violators, drug users, the mentally ill, the homeless, people suspected of misdemeanors or non-violent felonies, etc.

That does not mean that 40% of police are wife-beating, power-mad egomaniacs. Nor does it mean that those are the primary kinds of people attracted to police work. Being a cop is an extremely stressful job, and not conducive to having good, long term relationships. Take the medical profession. Physicians have the highest rate of divorce, drug abuse, and suicide of almost any other job. Does that mean most doctors are depressed junkies? Or that those are the kind of people drawn to becoming one? Of course not.

And no, not all criminals are Ted Bundy, but they are all lowlifes who skirt society’s rules, have not the slightest sense of ‘community’, nor of working to better themselves except by the easiest means possible, nor do they value any other people’s well being, property or concerns as being equally important as their own.

When a cop asks for ID and someone can’t produce any there is a 100% chance that they:
[ul]
[li]Are on probation[/li][li]Have outstanding warrants[/li][li]Are in possession of drugs[/li][/ul]
In other words, they’re a lowlife criminal, and its downhill from there…

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Hail_Ants

And no, not all criminals are Ted Bundy, but they are all lowlifes who skirt society’s rules, have not the slightest sense of ‘community’, nor of working to better themselves except by the easiest means possible, nor do they value any other people’s well being, property or concerns as being equally important as their own.

Someone who isn’t me broke the law the other day. He bought a largely safe, non-addictive, but very much illegal substance for personal recreational use. I know for a fact that that person has a very strong sense of community, constantly works to better himself, and values other people’s well-being quite firmly. Your absurd overgeneralization doesn’t even work on crimes that have a victim, given that in many cases such crimes are the result of desperation, marginalization, or mental illness. Your view of criminality is probably about a hundred years behind the times, and is outright dehumanizing towards criminals.

When a cop asks for ID and someone can’t produce any there is a 100% chance that they:
[ul]
[li]Are on probation[/li][li]Have outstanding warrants[/li][li]Are in possession of drugs[/li][/ul]
In other words, they’re a lowlife criminal, and its downhill from there…

…And towards non-criminals as well, what the hell. Citation very much fucking needed on that bullshit claim.

[LSLGuy]

@Hail_Ants

…
When a cop asks for ID and someone can’t produce any there is a 100% chance that they:
[ul]
[li]Are on probation[/li][li]Have outstanding warrants[/li][li]Are in possession of drugs[/li][/ul]
In other words, they’re a lowlife criminal, and its downhill from there…

Another vote that this is total BS.

I spend the vast majority of every day off out in public with zero ID. I wear a dogtag with my wife’s phone number on it in case I get whacked by a bus. Other than that I got 'nuthin. I’m on foot or on a bike and not encumbered by a wallet to lose or papers that would get wet in the ocean.

Are there *some * fraction of lowlifes running around claiming to have no ID or in fact not carrying ID? Sure. But they’re a small percentage of the vastly larger number of honest citizens who are doing so legitimately. At least in some environments.

[The_Tooth]

@Hail_Ants

When a cop asks for ID and someone can’t produce any there is a 100% chance that they:
[ul]
[li]Are on probation[/li][li]Have outstanding warrants[/li][li]Are in possession of drugs[/li][/ul]
In other words, they’re a lowlife criminal, and its downhill from there…

Nonsense. I just went to the store next door with nuthin’ but a $10 bill and a smile. Had I been asked for ID, by a cop or otherwise, I would have had to politely refuse. Prove I’m a criminal.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Hail_Ants

Ahem, I said ‘radical feminist groups’. There are extreme versions of every view, and I’m talking about lesbo, all-marriage-is-rape, men-hating femi-nazis.

Hail Ants, you’ve been warned multiple times in the past for using derogatory terms like ‘lesbo’. I’m giving you a warning for this.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@BigT

The reason why a police union is a bad idea is because police already have a ton of power. They don’t need a union that helps them out when they can just go arrest the guy who is inconveniencing them, just to let him go without any charges. They can just be slow to respond to anything in that guy’s neighborhood. They can hang around him and get him to incriminate himself by lying to him. And none of these things will get them in trouble, and most aren’t even illegal. Cops have no duty to defend the public.

I’m going to disagree with you, indeed say I think you have it exactly backwards. Having a union is a completely legitimate way to exercise power, and I encourage police to continue to unionize. All the ways you suggest they can exercise power are illegitimate and should be grounds for swift discipline, dismissal, or even prosecution.

Being able to unionize, and using that union to threaten free speech, are two different things, of course.

[Hail_Ants]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Someone who isn’t me broke the law the other day. He bought a largely safe, non-addictive, but very much illegal substance for personal recreational use. I know for a fact that that person has a very strong sense of community, constantly works to better himself, and values other people’s well-being quite firmly. Your absurd overgeneralization doesn’t even work on crimes that have a victim, given that in many cases such crimes are the result of desperation, marginalization, or mental illness. Your view of criminality is probably about a hundred years behind the times, and is outright dehumanizing towards criminals.

Seriously? Smoking pot is what you come up with?!

And yeah right, Michael Brown was stealing bread to feed his poor oppressed family.

@LSLGuy

Another vote that this is total BS.

I spend the vast majority of every day off out in public with zero ID. I wear a dogtag with my wife’s phone number on it in case I get whacked by a bus. Other than that I got 'nuthin. I’m on foot or on a bike and not encumbered by a wallet to lose or papers that would get wet in the ocean.

Are there *some * fraction of lowlifes running around claiming to have no ID or in fact not carrying ID? Sure. But they’re a small percentage of the vastly larger number of honest citizens who are doing so legitimately. At least in some environments.

Fine, but don’t bitch if a cop doesn’t believe you. And if you get loud & indignant about it don’t bitch when you wind up in handcuffs. And if you struggle against them your family has no right to bitch if you wind up dead.

Not being harassed by the cops is incredibly easy to avoid.

@Jonathan_Chance

Hail Ants, you’ve been warned multiple times in the past for using derogatory terms like ‘lesbo’. I’m giving you a warning for this.

Sorry.

[iiandyiiii]

@Hail_Ants

Not being harassed by the cops is incredibly easy to avoid.

Not in places like Ferguson, which according to the DOJ were more concerned with raising revenue by issuing fines for piddly shit to its poorest (and black) residents than actually serving and protecting.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Hail_Ants

Seriously? Smoking pot is what you come up with?!

Didn’t say pot. Doesn’t matter though; your claim is simply false.

And yeah right, Michael Brown was stealing bread to feed his poor oppressed family.

Well shoot, why do you think he robbed a convenience store? What factors do you think have more to do with it:
[ul]
[li]A lack of sense of community[/li][li]Being dirt-poor[/li][li]Having few economic opportunities[/li][li]Being criminal scum with no interest in doing anything decent or bettering himself[/li][/ul]

Smart money’s on a combination of the second and third one. Criminality is most commonly the result of societal influences. This is the state of criminology today. Your asinine overgeneralization is decades behind the times, and has absolutely no relation to reality.

Fine, but don’t bitch if a cop doesn’t believe you.

I shouldn’t fucking have to. If I’m an innocent, law-abiding citizen, the police have no business giving me shit, and having no identification

And if you get loud & indignant about it don’t bitch when you wind up in handcuffs.

I wasn’t aware “not prostrating myself in front of our glorious police overlords” was a criminal offense.

And if you struggle against them your family has no right to bitch if you wind up dead.

Because god forbid I resist an unlawful arrest because the cop didn’t like the way I look. God forbid I do anything other than peacefully comply.

Where the fuck does this attitude come from? Seriously, “Comply or we will shoot you” is NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR A POLICE FORCE IN A MODERN DEMOCRACY. It isn’t. If that is the standard you hold the cops to, then you are part of the problem, and more harmful to the state of law and order in this country than a hundred Michael Browns could be.

Not being harassed by the cops is incredibly easy to avoid.

Horse shit. This is directly refuted by all the available evidence in Ferguson, New York City, and Baltimore, and I guaran-fucking-tee that the more cities they investigate, the more evidence they’re going to find of exactly this kind of crap. What is Stop and Frisk, after all, if not a pervasive, systematic, and extremely racist harassment campaign, implemented and announced from the top down? Not being harassed by the cops is easy if you’re white.

[Steve_MB]

@HurricaneDitka

You may not see some of her statements and actions as anti-cop, but plenty of police disagree

You may not see the absence of stars in the moon-landing pictures as evidence of a hoax, but plenty of people disagree.

You may not see a gold-fringed flag as evidence of a scheme to subvert the Constitution, but plenty of people disagree.

You may not see a jet trail as a cloud of mind-controlling drugs distributed by the government, but plenty of people disagree.

@Hail_Ants

That does not mean that 40% of police are wife-beating, power-mad egomaniacs. Nor does it mean that those are the primary kinds of people attracted to police work.

Technically, yes, in that we have insufficient data to determine whether the indications point toward the former, the latter, or a combination of the two (the last being most likely on general principles, but, again, we have insufficient data for a meaningful answer on this point).

[astro]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Where the fuck does this attitude come from? Seriously, “Comply or we will shoot you” is NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR A POLICE FORCE IN A MODERN DEMOCRACY. It isn’t.
.

This is the core of the issue. “Comply or we will shoot you” is the required modern default mode for police officers who feel they are under physical threat or potential physical threat. They are trained to kill people who resist physically if the resistance is deemed to be a dangerous physical threat to them and obviously this is a judgement call. You wind up with rationales along the line of “Yes he was driving away from me but he was in a car and not obeying my orders and maybe could have run me over if he turned around and I got in his way so I shot him.”

In modernity if you have knife or gun and don’t drop it within seconds of being ordered you are getting shot on the spot. If you have your hands in your pockets and don’t take them out when ordered you are getting shot. If you refuse to turn around and maybe made a motion towards your pocket you are getting shot. If you resist arrest, you are not getting beat with a nightstick, you are getting shot.

I do understand on one level why this is happening. People should not be physically resisting arrest and some police (like people) are more panicky than others. If someone I had no prior connection with came after me with serious intent to injure me, and had the capability of doing so, my inclination would be to shoot them if I had a gun and was trained to use it. If you’re attacking me, fuck you, your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ends where my nose begins.

So I get it. But … I’m a panicky everyman, I’m not a trained police officer. I don’t know how to handle drunks, people high on drugs and aggressive lawbreakers who are attacking me. It does surprise me that the go to in these scenarios is to shoot them immediately if they are out of control and a safe taser shot is not available. You would think that there would be other solutions.

Where I don’t get it is the use of guns where the threat is not immediate and there is no apparent realistic mortal danger. The person is shot, often at a distance, for basically not listening and not following orders.

[Dale_Sams]

There are two solutions:

You arn’t allowed to shoot until shot at or charged with a knife.

You arn’t allowed to use a lethal weapon to make a subject comply until you can prove he has a weapon.

Don’t like it? Don’t be a cop. Give them all kinds of federal funds to pay them more too.