Great example of the corrupting influence of public unions: George Floyd protests work of "terrorist movement", says head of Minn police union

[SimpleDon]

The US is a police state. We have twice as many police personnel per capita as any other developed country. Part of the problem we have with the police is that they are highly decentralized in nearly 19,000 different agencies.

In national police forces or state or provincial wide police agencies they can move the abusive "bad apple" personnel to less stressful postings in small towns or the suburbs. They can assign rookies to the same to gain experience before they are assigned to the large urban areas.

In the Atlanta area we have the exact opposite situation. The Atlanta Police have one of the only police academies in the area. When they graduate the rookie officers are thrown into the highly stressful Atlanta urban scene until they gain experience and then many of them take jobs in the suburbs who can pay them more. The abusive "bad apples" aren't offered jobs in the suburbs leaving the APD with a force of inexperienced and abusive officers along with relatively few dedicated ones.

These are much larger problems than any that we have with the public service unions. The unions for the most part just reflect the attitudes of the membership, which is what I feel they are suppose to do. It is the attitudes that we need to change.

============== § ==============​

We had the same problems in the military and we corrected them. But the military has a highly centralized command structure and it still took thirty years to do it.

We have a huge problem with systemic racism in our society. The problem with our police probably won't be completely solved until we tackle the racism in our society.

I believe that we would now be much further along with the goal of eliminating systemic racism had not the Republican party provided a political home for the racists after 1968 in order to have the political power that the GOP needed to do everything possible to increase income inequality favoring the already rich.

Does anyone see a flaw in my belief?

 

[ZiprHead]

The Minnesota AFL-CIO has called for Kroll's resignation from his union position.

 

[ronburgundy]

The UK prohibits the police from unionizing, and the US prohibit police unions from striking. So, there really is no bargaining element to police unions. They exist to protect cops from accountability and should be eliminated. FYI, the murdering cop in question had been protected by the union in multiple prior instances where he was involved in deaths of suspects.

The police are a very particular circumstance, and thus the issue of their unions has zero implications for the pros and cons of labor unions more generally.

 

[ronburgundy]

The problem isn't that the police have a union. The problem is the person heading the union.

But that problem applies to every head of every police union in the US ever, since they have all used their power to shield bad cops. If they hadn't, we'd have instances of many cops in a precinct getting put in jail for crimes. That's never happened. So, that tells us there is an inherent problem with the system of unions in police forces.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem isn't that the police have a union. The problem is the person heading the union.

But that problem applies to every head of every police union in the US ever, since they have all used their power to shield bad cops. If they hadn't, we'd have instances of many cops in a precinct getting put in jail for crimes. That's never happened. So, that tells us there is an inherent problem with the system of unions in police forces.

Your argument would be more convincing if
1) you can show that police who are charged are just as likely to be found guilty as civilians,
2) that there is universal agreement on what constitutes a bad cop who deserves jail time vs a bad cop who deserves firing vs a poor cop who merits some sort of discipline vs a good cop who is getting railroaded, and
3) that police union contracts afford more protection from discipline than other public union contracts.

There are anecdotes. There is a columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune who has about one column every quarter about how binding arbitration inhibits the "proper" discipline of police officers. His evidence is an arbitrator's award that upsets him, but he never balances his argument with arbitration awards that protected a good police officer.

 

[ZiprHead]

Florida police organization offers to hire cops who were fired or resigned over police misconduct

 

[ruby sparks]

Florida police organization offers to hire cops who were fired or resigned over police misconduct

So the post says ‘we’re hiring’. But the police unions don’t do the hiring, I assume.

 

[ruby sparks]

The US is a police state. We have twice as many police personnel per capita as any other developed country.

I googled this, and was surprised to read that the US police per capita (330 officers per 100,000 population) is not much above the global average (300) and is below, amongst others, France (340), Northern Ireland (362), Israel (364), Germany (381), Italy (456), Mexico (464), Greece (503), Spain (533), Russia (623) and Argentina (798).

England and Wales has 211 (per 100,000 population). Canada 188, same as Norway (Scandinavian countries generally low, Finland has 130).

Wiki (see below) says that those figures may be very incomplete for federal countries such as the USA (and Canada), but I did check at a few other sources too. There appear to be about a million police in the US?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The US is a police state. We have twice as many police personnel per capita as any other developed country.

I googled this, and was surprised to read that the US police per capita (330 officers per 100,000 population) is not much above the global average (300) and is below, amongst others, France (340), Northern Ireland (362), Israel (364), Germany (381), Italy (456), Mexico (464), Greece (503), Spain (533), Russia (623) and Argentina (798).

England and Wales has 211 (per 100,000 population). Canada 188, same as Norway (Scandinavian countries generally low, Finland has 130).

Wiki (see below) says that those figures may be very incomplete for federal countries such as the USA (and Canada), but I did check at a few other sources too. There appear to be about a million police in the US?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers

Here's the desktop version, where you can also sort them by police per 100,000 people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers

Also, according to Wikipedia, in the US it's 298. That's close to twice the global number (165; at least going by the countries they count), but on the other hand, it's #88 out of 145, so it's low on the list. Not that that number actually tells us much.

 

[ZiprHead]

The US is a police state. We have twice as many police personnel per capita as any other developed country.

I googled this, and was surprised to read that the US police per capita (330 officers per 100,000 population) is not much above the global average (300) and is below, amongst others, France (340), Northern Ireland (362), Israel (364), Germany (381), Italy (456), Mexico (464), Greece (503), Spain (533), Russia (623) and Argentina (798).

England and Wales has 211 (per 100,000 population). Canada 188, same as Norway (Scandinavian countries generally low, Finland has 130).

Wiki (see below) says that those figures may be very incomplete for federal countries such as the USA (and Canada), but I did check at a few other sources too. There appear to be about a million police in the US?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers

Here's the desktop version, where you can also sort them by police per 100,000 people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers

Also, according to Wikipedia, in the US it's 298. That's close to twice the global number (165; at least going by the countries they count), but on the other hand, it's #88 out of 145, so it's low on the list. Not that that number actually tells us much.

Yeah, it's not the number but the type of people that are hired.

I guess it's time for me to tell my story again.

First day of a college (medical) class. The instructor asks us to each state why we were taking this course. One guy said he was originally planning to become a police officer. His classmates were made up of people who were either the high school bullies or those that were bulled and out for payback. He said the thought of spending eight hours a day sitting next to one of these guys in a police car made him sick. So he changed his major.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The US is a police state. We have twice as many police personnel per capita as any other developed country.

I googled this, and was surprised to read that the US police per capita (330 officers per 100,000 population) is not much above the global average (300) and is below, amongst others, France (340), Northern Ireland (362), Israel (364), Germany (381), Italy (456), Mexico (464), Greece (503), Spain (533), Russia (623) and Argentina (798).

England and Wales has 211 (per 100,000 population). Canada 188, same as Norway (Scandinavian countries generally low, Finland has 130).

Wiki (see below) says that those figures may be very incomplete for federal countries such as the USA (and Canada), but I did check at a few other sources too. There appear to be about a million police in the US?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers

What the world considers to be police officers is probably bigger in scope than in the US what we specifically call police officers. I mean, do sheriffs and their deputies count? What about campus police and high school security/police? They should. But then what about ATF, DEA, FBI? ICE? Probably should be included. Prison guards and probation officers who carry guns and can legally make arrests? I am not sure I even know all the groups. I don't think it'd be fair to include National Guard, intelligence agents in the CIA, Secret Service, or even military police since their function is not normally to deal with policing the public, even if Trump wants to use them as police. The context is about a "police state" not whether the specific term "police officer" has a consistent function or meaning across countries. So I am considering my view rational and moderate on this.

 

[ruby sparks]

The US is a police state. We have twice as many police personnel per capita as any other developed country.

I googled this, and was surprised to read that the US police per capita (330 officers per 100,000 population) is not much above the global average (300) and is below, amongst others, France (340), Northern Ireland (362), Israel (364), Germany (381), Italy (456), Mexico (464), Greece (503), Spain (533), Russia (623) and Argentina (798).

England and Wales has 211 (per 100,000 population). Canada 188, same as Norway (Scandinavian countries generally low, Finland has 130).

Wiki (see below) says that those figures may be very incomplete for federal countries such as the USA (and Canada), but I did check at a few other sources too. There appear to be about a million police in the US?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers

What the world considers to be police officers is probably bigger in scope than in the US what we specifically call police officers. I mean, do sheriffs and their deputies count? What about campus police and high school security/police? They should. But then what about ATF, DEA, FBI? ICE? Probably should be included. Prison guards and probation officers who carry guns and can legally make arrests? I am not sure I even know all the groups. I don't think it'd be fair to include National Guard, intelligence agents in the CIA, Secret Service, or even military police since their function is not normally to deal with policing the public, even if Trump wants to use them as police. The context is about a "police state" not whether the specific term "police officer" has a consistent function or meaning across countries. So I am considering my view rational and moderate on this.

I take your point.

I think 'Police State' is definitely over-egging it though. There may be some aspects of it which fit into that term however.

 

[ZiprHead]

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/HPRmzpGyycY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What the world considers to be police officers is probably bigger in scope than in the US what we specifically call police officers. I mean, do sheriffs and their deputies count? What about campus police and high school security/police? They should. But then what about ATF, DEA, FBI? ICE? Probably should be included. Prison guards and probation officers who carry guns and can legally make arrests? I am not sure I even know all the groups. I don't think it'd be fair to include National Guard, intelligence agents in the CIA, Secret Service, or even military police since their function is not normally to deal with policing the public, even if Trump wants to use them as police. The context is about a "police state" not whether the specific term "police officer" has a consistent function or meaning across countries. So I am considering my view rational and moderate on this.

I take your point.

I think 'Police State' is definitely over-egging it though. There may be some aspects of it which fit into that term however.

It might be....maybe....and I could be wrong...possibly subjective. For some persons, examples: minorities, especially African American; immigrants; and people who smoke weed, the country may be more like a police state to them. For example, if I were a black male, I may feel like I am constantly afraid of the system, govt, and police since 1 in 11 black males end up in jail and 1 in 1000 killed by police. As a straight white male who doesn't smoke weed, my personal concerns are mostly about how the cops in nearby town ramp up speed traps to meet local budget. Very different outcomes and observations of outcomes in my local neighborhood of persons.

 

[J842P]

What the world considers to be police officers is probably bigger in scope than in the US what we specifically call police officers. I mean, do sheriffs and their deputies count? What about campus police and high school security/police? They should. But then what about ATF, DEA, FBI? ICE? Probably should be included. Prison guards and probation officers who carry guns and can legally make arrests? I am not sure I even know all the groups. I don't think it'd be fair to include National Guard, intelligence agents in the CIA, Secret Service, or even military police since their function is not normally to deal with policing the public, even if Trump wants to use them as police. The context is about a "police state" not whether the specific term "police officer" has a consistent function or meaning across countries. So I am considering my view rational and moderate on this.

I take your point.

I think 'Police State' is definitely over-egging it though. There may be some aspects of it which fit into that term however.

It might be....maybe....and I could be wrong...possibly subjective. For some persons, examples: minorities, especially African American; immigrants; and people who smoke weed, the country may be more like a police state to them. For example, if I were a black male, I may feel like I am constantly afraid of the system, govt, and police since 1 in 11 black males end up in jail and 1 in 1000 killed by police. As a straight white male who doesn't smoke weed, my personal concerns are mostly about how the cops in nearby town ramp up speed traps to meet local budget. Very different outcomes and observations of outcomes in my local neighborhood of persons.

I'm sorry, but calling the US a police state is crazy. No doubt, there is a huge problem with criminal justice and policing in the United States, but it isn't a police state.

An example of what you might see in the US if it were a police state would be something like, say, a BLM meeting would broken up by state agents, and attendees arrested and thrown in jail without trail and left to languish indefinitely or otherwise disappeared.

I have a couple uncles in Guatemala who were disappeared (as in almost certainly tortured and killed and thrown in some ditch in the jungle). My father was almost disappeared, and the only reason he survive was because a guard knew my grandmother and let him go. He tells me there were bloody hand prints all over the halls as he ran out. This is because he was a student leader that was against the right-wing government at the time.

Perhaps at the height of the red scare, you had something like what the beginnings of a police state would look like, with Hoover's FBI. But not even then. And certainly not now.

 

[ruby sparks]

What the world considers to be police officers is probably bigger in scope than in the US what we specifically call police officers. I mean, do sheriffs and their deputies count? What about campus police and high school security/police? They should. But then what about ATF, DEA, FBI? ICE? Probably should be included. Prison guards and probation officers who carry guns and can legally make arrests? I am not sure I even know all the groups. I don't think it'd be fair to include National Guard, intelligence agents in the CIA, Secret Service, or even military police since their function is not normally to deal with policing the public, even if Trump wants to use them as police. The context is about a "police state" not whether the specific term "police officer" has a consistent function or meaning across countries. So I am considering my view rational and moderate on this.

I take your point.

I think 'Police State' is definitely over-egging it though. There may be some aspects of it which fit into that term however.

It might be....maybe....and I could be wrong...possibly subjective. For some persons, examples: minorities, especially African American; immigrants; and people who smoke weed, the country may be more like a police state to them. For example, if I were a black male, I may feel like I am constantly afraid of the system, govt, and police since 1 in 11 black males end up in jail and 1 in 1000 killed by police. As a straight white male who doesn't smoke weed, my personal concerns are mostly about how the cops in nearby town ramp up speed traps to meet local budget. Very different outcomes and observations of outcomes in my local neighborhood of persons.

I agree that there are issues, and yes that the comparison with a police state might be a bit better for the adversely-affected minorities. Personally, I'd reserve the term for something worse and still not use the term for the USA. I'm not sure it would be helpful. Apart from anything else, I think policing in the US is far too fragmented (over 18,000 individual forces). For another there are too many underlying (often stoutly-defended) individual freedoms in the US. The right for civilians to bear (a lot of) arms for example.

 

[ruby sparks]

Now, if you were to make a case that there are certain (some) ways the USA is at least a bit like an (informal) police state, then.....yeah. Sure.

 

[ronburgundy]

The problem isn't that the police have a union. The problem is the person heading the union.

But that problem applies to every head of every police union in the US ever, since they have all used their power to shield bad cops. If they hadn't, we'd have instances of many cops in a precinct getting put in jail for crimes. That's never happened. So, that tells us there is an inherent problem with the system of unions in police forces.

Your argument would be more convincing if
1) you can show that police who are charged are just as likely to be found guilty as civilians,

?? The Union helps to block evidence and the union culture pressures fellow cops not lie and not testify. So, the union is partly responsible for why charges don't lead to convictions, and they write the rules that ensure that cops are almost never charged.

2) that there is universal agreement on what constitutes a bad cop who deserves jail time vs a bad cop who deserves firing vs a poor cop who merits some sort of discipline vs a good cop who is getting railroaded, and

Nothing about what I said requires such a presumption, only that there are bad cops who are protected from prosecution. Do you deny that bad cops don't get prosecuted?

3) that police union contracts afford more protection from discipline than other public union contracts.

No. Many union contracts protect "bad" employees from discipline. Unions generally seek to minimize all punishments b/c of the precedent they set. The difference is that "bad" cops get away with murder, not just lousy teaching or lousy workmanship. Also, a major problem is there are near zero non-union people who have any real management or oversight. Not only are cops out on their own but their chiefs and superintendents are are lifelong police union members. Plus, all cops "customers" that complain are people that the "company" assumes are unreliable immoral criminals. That makes police unions a special circumstance where the 'stick together, it's us against them" mentality especially dangerous. We need cops policing cops and the union impedes that.