Police union asks deputies to not escort Dolphins until players stand for anthem

[Metaphor]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article102396747.html

The Dolphins will open up with their first home game of the season next week against the Cleveland Browns. The question is will the Broward Sheriff’s Office be escorting them to the game?

The controversial protest by Miami Dolphins players to not stand during the national anthem took another turn Friday as Broward County’s deputies take a stand of their own against the hometown team.

“We’ve asked the deputies and the Broward Sheriff’s Office not to do the details anymore,” said Jeffery Bell, the president of the International Union of Police Associations, Local 6020.

The union is asking for team-sponsored police escorts to stop until the team forces players to stand for the anthem.

“I respect their right to have freedom of speech.

No, you don't. You are threatening to withhold government services that they are entitled to because you disagree with their politics. When the government does that, that's censorship.

However, in certain organizations and certain jobs you give up that right of your freedom of speech temporary while you serve that job or while you play in an NFL game,” Bell said.

...


“I can only imagine the public outcry if a group of police officers refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance or if we turned our back for the American flag for the national anthem. There would be a public outcry and internal affairs complaints a mile long on that,” Bell said.

Yes, but you are a police officer beholden to your employer and the Miami Dolphins are beholden to their employers, not you.

The Broward Sheriff’s Office had no comment Friday night.

Miami-Dade police did; they also provide security for the Dolphins’ games.

They said they “have contractual obligations with Hard Rock Stadium to provide public safety. The safety of our residents and visitors is our primary concern.”

Any officer who refuses to do her duty because she disagrees with the recipient's political speech ought to be disciplined.

 

[untermensche]

This is the way it works in a police state. The police become ever and ever more intrusive and intolerant to free speech.

What the police should do is arrest and charge police that shoot unarmed people or choke them to death.

That will calm things down.

 

[Keith&Co.]

However, in certain organizations and certain jobs you give up that right of your freedom of speech temporary while you serve that job or while you play in an NFL game,” Bell said.

I'd like to see the legal support for that position.
I mean, i gave up a lot of freedoms when i enlisted but that was spelled out in the contract. I can't imagine how playing in the NFL takes away your right to not stand for the anthem....

 

[untermensche]

However, in certain organizations and certain jobs you give up that right of your freedom of speech temporary while you serve that job or while you play in an NFL game,” Bell said.

I'd like to see the legal support for that position.
I mean, i gave up a lot of freedoms when i enlisted but that was spelled out in the contract. I can't imagine how playing in the NFL takes away your right to not stand for the anthem....

It is totalitarian thinking.

But common place in corporations and other places of work that are structured in a top down rigid hierarchy.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'd like to see the legal support for that position.
I mean, i gave up a lot of freedoms when i enlisted but that was spelled out in the contract. I can't imagine how playing in the NFL takes away your right to not stand for the anthem....

It is totalitarian thinking.

But common place in corporations and other places of work that are structured in a top down rigid hierarchy.

No it's not. It's an image of the team that the people who are paying these athletes to represent that's the issue.

You have the right to say Burger King sucks, but if you work at Burger King you need to keep that private.

 

[dismal]

No, you don't. You are threatening to withhold government services that they are entitled to because you disagree with their politics. When the government does that, that's censorship.

I am entitled to police escorts? I was not aware of this.

It would sure make getting to work easier if they'd clear the traffic for me.

 

[Deepak]

No, you don't. You are threatening to withhold government services that they are entitled to because you disagree with their politics. When the government does that, that's censorship.

I am entitled to police escorts? I was not aware of this.

It would sure make getting to work easier if they'd clear the traffic for me.

If you paid for them, of course. If a movie theater hires a police detail on busy nights, are the police entitled to shirk their responsibility because the theater is airing a movie that's critical of police?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It is totalitarian thinking.

But common place in corporations and other places of work that are structured in a top down rigid hierarchy.

No it's not. It's an image of the team that the people who are paying these athletes to represent that's the issue.

You have the right to say Burger King sucks, but if you work at Burger King you need to keep that private.

Only because there are consequences.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you don't. You are threatening to withhold government services that they are entitled to because you disagree with their politics. When the government does that, that's censorship.

I am entitled to police escorts? I was not aware of this.

It would sure make getting to work easier if they'd clear the traffic for me.

If you paid the police to escort you.

 

[dismal]

I am entitled to police escorts? I was not aware of this.

It would sure make getting to work easier if they'd clear the traffic for me.

If you paid for them, of course. If a movie theater hires a police detail on busy nights, are the police entitled to shirk their responsibility because the theater is airing a movie that's critical of police?

Wait, so I have to pay for government services to which I am entitled now?

If it's all about money I guess they can hire someone else who wants the job.

 

[Derec]

If you paid for them, of course. If a movie theater hires a police detail on busy nights, are the police entitled to shirk their responsibility because the theater is airing a movie that's critical of police?

They are certainly entitled to refuse the gig if the theater is playing garbage like this film for example.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think the key to whether this is acceptable is based on why the Sheriff's department is providing the escorts.

If the city council (or whomever the Sheriff reports to) passed a law/resolution/whatever stating that escorts for the football players is one of the services that the sheriffs provide, due to the negative economic impact of them not getting to the game or whatever other rationale they felt made these players more equal than anyone else going to work, then the deputies cannot take the political views of the players into account when providing these services and need to continue providing these escorts as part of their official duties.

If, however, it's just kind a thing that they decided to do in order to support the team or whatever and it's not actually one of their official duties, then they can stop doing it whenever they want for whatever reasons they want. If they had said that they'll do it for the players they agree with politically and not the ones they disagree with, that would be a separate issue, but since they're stopping this non-official duty for everyone, that's fine.

 

[dismal]

I think the key to whether this is acceptable is based on why the Sheriff's department is providing the escorts.

If the city council (or whomever the Sheriff reports to) passed a law/resolution/whatever stating that escorts for the football players is one of the services that the sheriffs provide, due to the negative economic impact of them not getting to the game or whatever other rationale they felt made these players more equal than anyone else going to work, then the deputies cannot take the political views of the players into account when providing these services and need to continue providing these escorts as part of their official duties.

If, however, it's just kind a thing that they decided to do in order to support the team or whatever and it's not actually one of their official duties, then they can stop doing it whenever they want for whatever reasons they want. If they had said that they'll do it for the players they agree with politically and not the ones they disagree with, that would be a separate issue, but since they're stopping this non-official duty for everyone, that's fine.

Well, if people can shut down a freeway to protest (which is against the law), surely these noble union members can also make their statement in contravention of a law.

Unless you are some sort of fascist who wants to limit their speech.

 

[untermensche]

It is totalitarian thinking.

But common place in corporations and other places of work that are structured in a top down rigid hierarchy.

No it's not. It's an image of the team that the people who are paying these athletes to represent that's the issue.

You have the right to say Burger King sucks, but if you work at Burger King you need to keep that private.

You are merely saying you think totalitarian systems are OK.

You have not provided any reason for me to think so.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the key to whether this is acceptable is based on why the Sheriff's department is providing the escorts.

If the city council (or whomever the Sheriff reports to) passed a law/resolution/whatever stating that escorts for the football players is one of the services that the sheriffs provide, due to the negative economic impact of them not getting to the game or whatever other rationale they felt made these players more equal than anyone else going to work, then the deputies cannot take the political views of the players into account when providing these services and need to continue providing these escorts as part of their official duties.

If, however, it's just kind a thing that they decided to do in order to support the team or whatever and it's not actually one of their official duties, then they can stop doing it whenever they want for whatever reasons they want. If they had said that they'll do it for the players they agree with politically and not the ones they disagree with, that would be a separate issue, but since they're stopping this non-official duty for everyone, that's fine.

Well, if people can shut down a freeway to protest (which is against the law), surely these noble union members can also make their statement in contravention of a law.

Unless you are some sort of fascist who wants to limit their speech.

They can do it on their free time and then should be treated by those working in the police department as others would be treated.

But their job is to enforce the law.

 

[Derec]

They can do it on their free time

But football players should be able to do it while on the job?

 

[dismal]

No it's not. It's an image of the team that the people who are paying these athletes to represent that's the issue.

You have the right to say Burger King sucks, but if you work at Burger King you need to keep that private.

You are merely saying you think totalitarian systems are OK.

You have not provided any reason for me to think so.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the key to whether this is acceptable is based on why the Sheriff's department is providing the escorts.

If the city council (or whomever the Sheriff reports to) passed a law/resolution/whatever stating that escorts for the football players is one of the services that the sheriffs provide, due to the negative economic impact of them not getting to the game or whatever other rationale they felt made these players more equal than anyone else going to work, then the deputies cannot take the political views of the players into account when providing these services and need to continue providing these escorts as part of their official duties.

If, however, it's just kind a thing that they decided to do in order to support the team or whatever and it's not actually one of their official duties, then they can stop doing it whenever they want for whatever reasons they want. If they had said that they'll do it for the players they agree with politically and not the ones they disagree with, that would be a separate issue, but since they're stopping this non-official duty for everyone, that's fine.

Well, if people can shut down a freeway to protest (which is against the law), surely these noble union members can also make their statement in contravention of a law.

Unless you are some sort of fascist who wants to limit their speech.

They can do it on their free time and then should be treated by those working in the police department as others would be treated.

But their job is to enforce the law.

You sound like a fascist who wants to silence these people.

 

[untermensche]

They can do it on their free time and then should be treated by those working in the police department as others would be treated.

But their job is to enforce the law.

You sound like a fascist who wants to silence these people.

By saying they can protest all they want?

Let them all protest.

I won't cry.

But if they protest while on duty they are not doing their job.

It would be as if Kapernick refused to play.

Not as if he didn't show enough respect to a stupid song.

 

[repoman]

The only time when the cops should be able to refuse that type of duty is when they have been specifically singled out for verbal insult (or excessive sarcasm - like if they said "yes massa" to the cops) or a direct threat of assault by the players. I doubt that would ever happen.

But can we get the cops to invite the players come out for police training encounters with armed suspects?

Also, can the players focus on Judges/Police Chiefs/District Attorneys? That is where the real action is. Going back to an old example, even if Michael Brown shooting was justified (I think it was, but you don't care about my opinion) the way the DA acted was beyond criminal. Not trying to open that up again.

 

[dismal]

The only time when the cops should be able to refuse that type of duty is when they have been specifically singled out for verbal insult (or excessive sarcasm - like if they said "yes massa" to the cops) or a direct threat of assault by the players. I doubt that would ever happen.

Seems like this duty should be optional. Escorting millionaire entertainers around for extra cash is not core to the mission of a police force.

 

[untermensche]

The only time when the cops should be able to refuse that type of duty is when they have been specifically singled out for verbal insult (or excessive sarcasm - like if they said "yes massa" to the cops) or a direct threat of assault by the players. I doubt that would ever happen.

Seems like this duty should be optional. Escorting millionaire entertainers around for extra cash is not core to the mission of a police force.

Neither is beating up Occupy Wall Street protestors.

Or keeping protestors away from any event.

 

[repoman]

The only time when the cops should be able to refuse that type of duty is when they have been specifically singled out for verbal insult (or excessive sarcasm - like if they said "yes massa" to the cops) or a direct threat of assault by the players. I doubt that would ever happen.

Seems like this duty should be optional. Escorting millionaire entertainers around for extra cash is not core to the mission of a police force.

Yeah, this is not like a National Guardsman in 1957 refusing to work escorting the Little Rock Nine.