Ferguson

[Alaska Darin]

 

 

I'm with you. It should be SOP in all officer related shootings. It'd have a two handed effect: 1. help combat public fears of police / prosecution collusion and 2. go a long ways towards helping change the mindset that investigation = guilt.

 

 

 

 

It's true! But what happens when the IAD is dirty?! Then you're forced to rely on Tom Cruise or Denzel Washington and vigilante justice.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

A private organization comprised of Police Officers designed to protect the rights of police officers. And as police officers, they should know better. As I said originally, this is a symptom of a larger problem. And the fact more people aren't outraged by it shows that it's not just the cops who are starting to think this way...

 

That's why it's a problem. All the attempts to try to justify it on the SLPOA's end is just semantic masturbation. They should know better, they're supposed to protect the police -- this makes them look TERRIBLE. And they brought it completely upon themselves.

I never said it was a good idea. Lets not make strawman points.

[Rob's House]

 

 

So you think it's okay for the police to determine what is or is not appropriate when it comes to free speech? Again, forget the merits of the protest and think about what the police are actually saying with this ridiculous statement. They're the last organization in the country that should EVER take a stance on a first amendment issue unless it's to defend it -- especially when the issue is about criticizing the police themselves.

 

You might not agree with this issue, but you might care about the next one. It sets an alarming precedent -- or attempts to.

 

It'd be one thing is the cops were using their authority under the law to arrest or cite NFL players for their speech, quite another if a police department, union, or association asks the NFL to discipline those **** bags without threat or show of force.

[GG]

Ah, so you haven't bothered to read, or comprehend, what I wrote upthread. Again, stop acting like a !@#$ unless you want me to slap you around.

 

I'll try again:

 

 

"It's a organization designed to "protect the rights of police officers".

 

Their membership includes active officers (government agents).

 

The officers membership in this organization is as a function of their role as government agents, not private citizens.

 

When a group of government agents band together to form a "private organization" in order to further their agenda as government agents, as stated in the organization's own charter; it doesn't serve to blur the line, and make that advocacy OK. It's simply a disgusting attempt to mask the intentions of government agents, especially when the demands of the organization are to muffle free speech directed at the member government agents."

 

Not really. The organization exists to further their agenda as private citizens who happen to work for government agencies.

[Alaska Darin]

 

 

Not really. The organization exists to further their agenda as private citizens who happen to work for government agencies.

Apparently this point is difficult to comprehend, as is the fact that these organizations didn't come into being because people just love joining things.

[Deranged Rhino]

Your faux outrage is cute, but not grounded in reality. They're not demanding anything, at least not with any potency. They made a request to the employers of a group of men who made a very public demonstration while at their workplace. The employers did what they felt was best and denied the request. Cops didn't ride up in there and demand apologies or blood offering at gunpoint. They made a request. They, as an organization which has the avenues and the opportunities to express the organization's views in accordance with their own first amendment rights, made a request.

 

Let's review: their organization has First Amendment rights. The players paid by the Rams, for all intents and purposes, do not have First Amendment rights while they are on the clock for their employer. So a group with collective free speech rights asked an employer with free speech rights to discipline their employees who used speech when they do not have free speech rights. The request was denied. Outrage averted (unless you're Greg or a race baiter or some sort of leftist who thinks that police are the greatest evil of our time [look, I can be dramatic too!]).

 

You want it to be about free speech, so framed everything here around free speech. The only people without free speech rights in this whole mess are the players involved, so I'm still not sure why you're so butt-hurt.

 

P.S. If you've been around these parts and paying any sort of attention over the past four or five years, you'd know exactly what I think about police, police states, militarization of police forces, etc. Regardless of how little you know about them, my thoughts on the subject have no bearing on what I think about your arguments, which are silly.

 

I missed this when I was catching up, apologies...

 

I've said since the my first post my problem with this is what it says about the police mentality in the country. It might sound like faux outrage, but I assure you it's legitimate. This is deeply offensive to me, and I understand that because it's stemming from a controversial issue like Ferguson it's easy to lose sight of the bigger threat -- but I assure you it's not the St. Louis Rams. It's what the SPLOA's statement reveals about the militarization of our police forces around the country.

 

I'm not saying the SLPOA is forcing action, because they obviously cannot. I've also never claimed that they're part of the government or any other tangent people want to take this down. I've also been clear that if the individual cop wants to speak out, by all means he or she has every right to do so. But to do so in an official capacity -- let alone as an organization of police -- is so far beyond the pale I'm flabbergasted this is even a controversial issue. It goes against everything that's supposed to be fundamental about America. We're free to ridicule and protest against the police, state, or anything we damn well please. For police to have the balls to make a statement that says they are above reproach should outrage you.

 

As for your last point: saying the players have no freedom of speech is asinine. While it's true that an employer can terminate a worker legally for speech the worker still has free speech. If a worker wants to risk their job to say something about the state or the cops that person has every right to do so. You don't forgo that right as a worker -- you just forgo certain protections about your employment. We can kick an athlete out of the Olympic Village for raising the black power salute -- but that athlete isn't subjected to any form of punishment from the state. So that's a red-herring type of argument to make, especially considering the Rams did not object, nor did the NFL.

 

I never said it was a good idea. Lets not make strawman points.

 

Completely fair and not my intent.

 

It'd be one thing is the cops were using their authority under the law to arrest or cite NFL players for their speech, quite another if a police department, union, or association asks the NFL to discipline those **** bags without threat or show of force.

 

One step leads to the other. That's the problem.

[Alaska Darin]

 

One step leads to the other. That's the problem.

I do agree with this. Cops have looooooooong memories.

[GG]

I do agree with this. Cops have looooooooong memories.

 

That's why the Rams' players action was so short sighted. It's not like they won't need a "favor" or two from the STLPD at some point in the near future.

[KD in CA]

Coroner ruled Eric Garner's death a homicide. Chokehold that killed him was against NYPD's rules. It's all on video. http://reason.com/bl...-death …

 

Everyone knows that this should be something where they hand you a citation and move on. Not have a gang of cops fight you to the ground................ Unacceptable

 

 

One way the Garner case is different from the Michael Brown case: conservatives are just as appalled and outraged by Garner as those on left are.

 

You see its illuminating when watching the difference in reactions. The Left treats every case as if it's the same while Conservatives react to actual facts.

 

I'm not outraged. Who says he should have received a summons? The Illegal cigarette trade costs NYC tens of millions of dollars per year and is a focus of the NYPD. Regardless, the cops made the decision to arrest the man and he resisted. When you choose to resist arrest, cops will use an increasing amount of force until they complete the arrest. That's something anyone over the age of 12 should understand. If in the course of being wrestled to the ground, the 350+ lb pound man had a heart attack and died, that's unfortunate. But it's entirely his own fault by refusing to submit to arrest when he was caught.

 

The narrative that he was 'choked to death over cigarettes' is just more bullsh-- pandering to the ignorant and easily riled masses.

[Alaska Darin]

 

 

That's why the Rams' players action was so short sighted. It's not like they won't need a "favor" or two from the STLPD at some point in the near future.

I'm quite sure the team let them know that was the last time that kind of thing should happen. I also believe they're going to try to smooth it over when the heat dials down. After the Leonard Little thing, there's not much tolerance for stuff from the football team.

[TakeYouToTasker]

GG, AD, and 4mer:

 

The organization does not represent their interests as private citizens. It represents their interests as government agents, and says as much in it's charter. Police officers, when conducting government business, are not private citizens in the way you are trying to portray them.

 

Further, it's demands made to the NFL were made in regards to an officer who was acting in his government capacity during the incident in question, not as a private citizen. If Officer Wilson had been off duty when this happened, your argument would hold water. However he was not, so it does not.

[Alaska Darin]

GG, AD, and 4mer:

 

The organization does not represent their interests as private citizens. It represents their interests as government agents, and says as much in it's charter. Police officers, when conducting government business, are not private citizens in the way you are trying to portray them.

 

Further, it's demands made to the NFL were made in regards to an officer who was acting in his government capacity during the incident in question, not as a private citizen. If Officer Wilson had been off duty when this happened, your argument would hold water. However he was not, so it does not.

Keep trying

[TakeYouToTasker]

Keep trying

Keep being a quasi-authortarian !@#$.

 

It doesn't make you right, it just makes me question the morality of your personal philosphy on justice and the proper role of the state.

[Alaska Darin]

 

Keep being a quasi-authortarian !@#$.

 

It doesn't make you right, it just makes me question the morality of your personal philosphy on justice and the proper role of the state.

I'll let you know when I give a **** about your opinion. Hold your breath.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'll let you know when I give a **** about your opinion. Hold your breath.

And you should continue to feel free to be mockably ignorant of the principles of limited government. I won't try to stop you, but I will remind you every time you act like a !@#$.

Edited December 4, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Alaska Darin]

 

And you should continue to feel free to mockably ignorant of the principles of limited government. I won't try to stop you, but I will remind you every time you act like a !@#$.

Ooh. I'm all tingly with anticipation.

 

You keep chasing those teeny tiny molehills and pretending it's making a difference.

 

The SLPOA did something stupid. It's not even a blip on the radar of what makes governments at all levels overbearing and your points in this thread are on that level.

[boyst]

I'm not outraged. Who says he should have received a summons? The Illegal cigarette trade costs NYC tens of millions of dollars per year and is a focus of the NYPD. Regardless, the cops made the decision to arrest the man and he resisted. When you choose to resist arrest, cops will use an increasing amount of force until they complete the arrest. That's something anyone over the age of 12 should understand. If in the course of being wrestled to the ground, the 350+ lb pound man had a heart attack and died, that's unfortunate. But it's entirely his own fault by refusing to submit to arrest when he was caught.

 

The narrative that he was 'choked to death over cigarettes' is just more bullsh-- pandering to the ignorant and easily riled masses.

agreed.

 

He resisted arrest. The outcome is highly unfortunate because another life is lost but it was his own fault and anyone who has a half lick of sense should know that the way the justice system works. He'd have been arrested, booked and likely released within a day.

[IDBillzFan]

The Illegal cigarette trade costs NYC tens of millions of dollars per year and is a focus of the NYPD.

 

I have no idea what this is about. I understand if someone is trying to sell gray market smokes brought in from another state, but I thought this guy was just selling single cigarettes. Is the NYPD really going after people for selling loose smokes on the street?

[....lybob]

agreed.

 

He resisted arrest. The outcome is highly unfortunate because another life is lost but it was his own fault and anyone who has a half lick of sense should know that the way the justice system works. He'd have been arrested, booked and likely released within a day.

Fine but to be consistent you'd have to believe that the Feds would have been justified in mowing down armed Bundy ranch protesters when they resisted orders. Thank god the Feds used discretion and deescalated the situation.

[boyst]

Fine but to be consistent you'd have to believe that the Feds would have been justified in mowing down armed Bundy ranch protesters when they resisted orders. Thank god the Feds used discretion and deescalated the situation.

The Feds were morons in that case and they should have been more hands on and grown a pair. Had they actually done their job the event would have been much different.

 

If they went in there with a few billy clubs it would have been much different. They'd probably have either dispersed the wannabees or stopped the entire thing. But, there were more then a few idiots out there with their guns ready to fight back. There would have been casualties on both sides.

 

That case was much different but I am glad you tried to compare the two, nonetheless.

[4merper4mer]

 

 

 

The SLPOA did something stupid. It's not even a blip on the radar of what makes governments at all levels overbearing and your points in this thread are on that level.

 

Would that be because it is not a government at all?