Police Reform?

[mahagonny]

Continuing (if anyone's in the mood) the discussion of policing in America, race, etc. that began on the George Floyd thread but sure, we can leave Floyd out of this as much as possible.
Can you argue against police having unions and for teachers having unions?
This might be interesting. A liberal journalist, certainly. But he's advocating police union busting. Who would he vote for? Democrats are not union busters and voting republican would be unthinkable for him and most of his readers.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/bust-the-police-unions/619006/

[apl68]

I've spoken before here about the mason's union that my father once belonged to.  That union took care of its workers and protected them against unfair practices and working conditions.  It also maintained high standards of craft among its members.  The union reps wouldn't tolerate slipshod work, and they wouldn't defend any worker found guilty of turning in such work.  Police unions in many cities have clearly forgotten about the second part of their responsibilities.  Which goes a long way toward explaining why public trust in them has so eroded.

A union, especially a public-service union, that defends its members against all consequences of their actions without engaging in self-policing to make sure that the members are worthy of union protection is failing in its responsibility to the broader community.  Maybe saying "bust" such unions is too strong, but they do need to be taken down a peg.  If they aren't, they're going to store up so much resentment against themselves that there is a real danger of their eventually being busted.  It would be so much better for everybody concerned if it the situation wasn't allowed to go that far.

[Parasaurolophus]

Police unions seem to function pretty differently from ordinary unions. In particular, when it comes to misconduct (which seems like far too light a term for the despicable behaviour I have in mind) they seem to function to obstruct justice, and as accessories after the fact. Police absolutely deserve unions to help them negotiate the terms of their labour, and I don't even begrudge them a union observer in disciplinary hearings. But they can't act with impunity and be entirely unaccountable for their actions. And anyone who helps to cover up police activity which, if done by someone else, would amount to gross negligence or a crime, is part of the problem and should be fired. Those are bad apples. And when you let apple rot, the rot runs deep into the pile.

Frankly, I'm not sure that focusing on police unions is the right thing to do--or, I'm not sure it's the right first step. While these unions do seem to need some kind of reform, the real underlying issue is gross negligence and criminality on the part of police officers, who are empowered to use violence against the rest of us. (That said, there is evidence that cops get more violent after they unionize, perhaps because they appreciate their increased immunity.) Police unions present obstacles that need to be removed--e.g. many unions have secured the right to wait at least 48 hours before interrogating officers for misconduct, which is an obvious worst practice--but the list of what's wrong with the cops is just a lot longer than the list of their union protections.

If we want to get serious, then we need to adopt low-tolerance codes of conduct and widespread firings (and just rebuild the thing entirely), we need to get serious about training, especially in standards of evidence (most of it, like GSR, spatter, and lie detectors, is bogus, and even non-bogus things like fingerprints are poorly understood and routinely misused and misrepresented) and interrogation (coerced confessions are rampant, and interrogative techniques are transparently bad), we need to get serious about investigating misconduct and probably attach stiffer-than-usual penalties to it (they need to be held to a higher standard), we need to end this kind of training seminar ("killology"), we need prosecutorial justice (including fewer plea bargains and more trials), etc.

The list is long.

[mahagonny]

I've spoken before here about the mason's union that my father once belonged to.  That union took care of its workers and protected them against unfair practices and working conditions.  It also maintained high standards of craft among its members.  The union reps wouldn't tolerate slipshod work, and they wouldn't defend any worker found guilty of turning in such work.  Police unions in many cities have clearly forgotten about the second part of their responsibilities.  Which goes a long way toward explaining why public trust in them has so eroded.

A union, especially a public-service union, that defends its members against all consequences of their actions without engaging in self-policing to make sure that the members are worthy of union protection is failing in its responsibility to the broader community.  Maybe saying "bust" such unions is too strong, but they do need to be taken down a peg.  If they aren't, they're going to store up so much resentment against themselves that there is a real danger of their eventually being busted.  It would be so much better for everybody concerned if it the situation wasn't allowed to go that far.

Interesting. Whose job would it be to monitor work done by union members to determine if it's up to standard or not? Isn't that time consuming?

[marshwiggle]

Police unions seem to function pretty differently from ordinary unions. In particular, when it comes to misconduct (which seems like far too light a term for the despicable behaviour I have in mind) they seem to function to obstruct justice, and as accessories after the fact.

This is much like how virtually all unions act. They automatically defend members against any charges, and when members are even convicted of crimes outside their work, unions will push for sentencing so that they can serve on weekends and keep their jobs, etc.

This includes faculty unions.

On November 9, 1999, [Vladimir] Platonov appeared in court on a bail hearing on a charge of attempted murder for an attack on his wife.He was convicted of assault. The court gave him a conditional sentence of two years. In September 2001, Platonov took early retirement as a professor of the University of Waterloo.

He attacked his wife, hitting her in the head with a rock. Early retirement; there's union outrage for despicable conduct........

And he wasn't even in a profession in which physical violence is part of the job, like it is for cops. So faculty have no business getting on their high horses in light of incidents like this.

[mahagonny]

Police unions seem to function pretty differently from ordinary unions. In particular, when it comes to misconduct (which seems like far too light a term for the despicable behaviour I have in mind) they seem to function to obstruct justice, and as accessories after the fact.

This is much like how virtually all unions act. They automatically defend members against any charges, and when members are even convicted of crimes outside their work, unions will push for sentencing so that they can serve on weekends and keep their jobs, etc.

This includes faculty unions.

On November 9, 1999, [Vladimir] Platonov appeared in court on a bail hearing on a charge of attempted murder for an attack on his wife.He was convicted of assault. The court gave him a conditional sentence of two years. In September 2001, Platonov took early retirement as a professor of the University of Waterloo.

He attacked his wife, hitting her in the head with a rock. Early retirement; there's union outrage for despicable conduct........

And he wasn't even in a profession in which physical violence is part of the job, like it is for cops. So faculty have no business getting on their high horses in light of incidents like this.

Exactly the problem I was contemplating. If the liberals (Parasaur...) want to make headway on police reform they have to align with the moderates or middle-conservatives (Marshy) who just don't like unions, period.
Oh well, we can train teachers and corporate employees to give up their toxic racism-enabling ways. That'll prevent any more George Floyd incidents, won't it.

[Parasaurolophus]

I just believe that nobody is above the law, not even the queen. I'm told that was a popular opinion in certain parts of the late eighteenth-century world.

Shrug.

(For what it's worth, I was actually activated on this issue by the police murder of a white man--gasp!--almost fifteen years ago. What I've seen and learned since has not inspired confidence.

Just a few months ago, a cop here chased down a cyclist and rammed him with his car because his back reflector had broken off (or something along those lines--a lot has happened since then and my memory is fuzzy). That's not okay.

[mahagonny]

I just believe that nobody is above the law, not even the queen. I'm told that was a popular opinion in certain parts of the late eighteenth-century world.

Shrug.

If you're the forumite I'm thinking of you've also posted that you think looting and malicious destruction of property during demonstrations are no big deal.
It's OK to take sides. But if that's what you're doing then people notice.

ETA:

(For what it's worth, I was actually activated on this issue by the police murder of a white man--gasp!--almost fifteen years ago. What I've seen and learned since has not inspired confidence.

Some of your best friends are white.

Just a few months ago, a cop here chased down a cyclist and rammed him with his car because his back reflector had broken off (or something along those lines--a lot has happened since then and my memory is fuzzy). That's not okay.

It's possible to sound like you're in favor of police reform without sounding like you're on the fringes. Coleman Hughes does it.

[apl68]

I just believe that nobody is above the law, not even the queen.

And that's the crux of it.  Nobody should be above being held responsible for their actions, which is what the law is about.  Where police officers aren't always being held sufficiently responsible, there need to be measures taken to fix that.   Nearly everybody agrees with that in principle.  Most Americans are prepared to recognize that steps need to be taken to rein in egregious police offenders of the sort that have been so widely publicized.  The tragedy is that the reform movement has all too often been hijacked by extremists with extremist agendas.  Whenever that happens to a good cause, people who might otherwise support it become afraid to lend their support for fear of empowering that extremism.  I'm afraid that the moment for police reform may already have been largely lost in some states and cities.

I'm glad our local police and mayor's offices have recognized the need to engage in community policing to help keep the police in good standing with all parts of the community.  But we don't have very strong public-sector unions around here to react against needed procedural changes.

[Parasaurolophus]

If you're the forumite I'm thinking of you've also posted that you think looting and malicious destruction of property during demonstrations are no big deal.
It's OK to take sides. But if that's what you're doing then people notice.

If you notice, then you should take the time to read and understand what was actually said, and then accurately represent it, rather than some strawman you like tilting at.

To reiterate for clarity: property damage is going to happen during large demonstrations. Nobody can control tens or hundreds of thousands of people well enough to prevent four or five of them from starting that. You can't tarnish a group of tens or hundreds of thousands of people with that. I'm happy to agree that it's not okay, but in the scheme of things it's really, really small potatoes because nobody is getting hurt. You can try to take your broken window to the emegency room, but nobody there will help you with it because it's less important than even a minor human ailment.

When you compare property damage to (1) police brutality and murder of citizens or (2) violent state responses to protests, the inconvenience of property damage pales in comparison to the actual harms suffered by citizens at the hands of state actors charged with preventing harm to them. Focusing on the smaller issue is just a bad faith rhetorical tactic aimed at drawing attention away from the important stuff. If you're so concerned about property damage during protests against police brutality, then work to eliminate the need to protest against police brutality.

Nearly everybody agrees with that in principle.  Most Americans are prepared to recognize that steps need to be taken to rein in egregious police offenders of the sort that have been so widely publicized.  The tragedy is that the reform movement has all too often been hijacked by extremists with extremist agendas.  Whenever that happens to a good cause, people who might otherwise support it become afraid to lend their support for fear of empowering that extremism.  I'm afraid that the moment for police reform may already have been largely lost in some states and cities.

The problem is that when you don't do anything about it for decades, that's what breeds "extreme" responses. We wouldn't have gotten to the point of arguing for defunding the police (if that's what worries you, or firing them all, as I advocate) if meaningful action had been taken decades ago. People are tired of accepting measured compromises which are never enacted in the first place. Demanding small-scale technocratic change has resulted in nothing. If demanding significant change gets compromised down to something smaller, that's still a win, and a bigger one than sitting around quietly achieved.

It's like climate change, really. The emissions cutbacks required of us in the late nineties weren't all that significant, and were easily achievable. Today, they'd be seriously punishing. In the late nineties, we weren't yet seriously considering geoengineering because the problem hadn't yet metastasized; today, we are, because it has.

[lightning]

I'm a member of two unions, and I am a staunch supporter of unions in general. I and many members of other unions draw the line when unions defend systemic racism and murder. So, no, just because unions are protected by liberals does not mean liberals will not speak out and vote against the police union's aims to maintain systemic racism and protect murderers. I'll be the first in line to dismantle police unions, if it were actually possible.

Andy why the hell would I think and do otherwise? Where the hell would you get such an assumption that liberals and union members would defend police unions just because they are organized labor? Just because it would cost the left some political power and poke holes in the consistency of policy, doesn't mean the left has to abandon important principles that transcend unions and political power. Abandoning principles just to protect political power would be thinking and acting like a Republican . . . . .

[mahagonny]

So it's not possible to take police unions away from them? Who's been trying hard to do it and needs more support? That's what people of principle would be doing. What I see academics doing is mostly writing more books about white supremacy in our culture and licking their chops over who's going to get to teach the new anti-racism courses.
ETA: These are not going to put significant pressure on police, but they make money for the stars of the CRT movement (e.g. Kendi, Hannah-Jones and DiAngelo, who are lightweight academics, although hardly anyone admits it) and the academics riding their coattails.

[marshwiggle]

From CNN:

Dozens of Portland police officers resign from team that responds to protests after member is indicted

About 50 officers assigned to the Portland police department's crowd control team resigned one day after one of the team's officers was indicted for allegedly using his department-issued baton to assault a protester last summer.

The wholesale resignation of the police department's Rapid Response Team (RRT) took place after a Multnomah County grand jury handed down an indictment Wednesday charging Officer Corey Budworth with fourth-degree battery. All the officers who resigned their positions on the team returned to their regular assignments.

This will be interesting to watch over the next few years. So far, these police are staying with their regular duties. If it's just theatre, then in a while they'll return to things as before. If they start quitting their jobs, and the city can't find sufficient replacements, then there will definitely be fewer people arrested, or even interacting with police.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Parasaurolophus]

From CNN:

Dozens of Portland police officers resign from team that responds to protests after member is indicted

About 50 officers assigned to the Portland police department's crowd control team resigned one day after one of the team's officers was indicted for allegedly using his department-issued baton to assault a protester last summer.

The wholesale resignation of the police department's Rapid Response Team (RRT) took place after a Multnomah County grand jury handed down an indictment Wednesday charging Officer Corey Budworth with fourth-degree battery. All the officers who resigned their positions on the team returned to their regular assignments.

This will be interesting to watch over the next few years. So far, these police are staying with their regular duties. If it's just theatre, then in a while they'll return to things as before. If they start quitting their jobs, and the city can't find sufficient replacements, then there will definitely be fewer people arrested, or even interacting with police.

Be careful what you wish for.

Good. 50 bad cops outing themselves as such and resigning in one day from an assignment which allowed them to cause a great deal of harm is good news. Everyone will be better off for it. If only they could be fired outright.

Solidarity is good and fine. Solidarity to obstruct justice is not. When it isn't the cops doing it, it's called 'conspiracy'.

[mahagonny]

From CNN:

Dozens of Portland police officers resign from team that responds to protests after member is indicted

About 50 officers assigned to the Portland police department's crowd control team resigned one day after one of the team's officers was indicted for allegedly using his department-issued baton to assault a protester last summer.

The wholesale resignation of the police department's Rapid Response Team (RRT) took place after a Multnomah County grand jury handed down an indictment Wednesday charging Officer Corey Budworth with fourth-degree battery. All the officers who resigned their positions on the team returned to their regular assignments.

This will be interesting to watch over the next few years. So far, these police are staying with their regular duties. If it's just theatre, then in a while they'll return to things as before. If they start quitting their jobs, and the city can't find sufficient replacements, then there will definitely be fewer people arrested, or even interacting with police.

Be careful what you wish for.

Good. 50 bad cops outing themselves as such and resigning in one day from an assignment which allowed them to cause a great deal of harm is good news. Everyone will be better off for it. If only they could be fired outright.

Solidarity is good and fine. Solidarity to obstruct justice is not. When it isn't the cops doing it, it's called 'conspiracy'.

I guess this is an aside but I'm putting it here anyway.
This is how some people (I don't know how many, but how ever many most academics are capable of believing, it's way more than that) feel when they read 'take away (pick one) faculty unions or tenure and the best faculty will give up teaching for good and make more money in industry.'
More on topic: I doubt I can convince you but anyway, here goes. These Portland Police have actually showed quite a bit of restraint in an atmosphere of verbal abuse, smear campaigns and misinformation. Many people (overwhelmingly more so among self identified liberals) are thinking ridiculously erroneous high numbers of BIPOC individuals that they believe are killed by police every year. How things got that way I'm not sure exactly, but the race-baiters and other lefties who are better informed seem to think it's just fine that so many are so misinformed.
https://www.policemag.com/596346/half-of-surveys-very-liberal-respondents-believe-1-000-or-more-unarmed-black-men