[tenorgirl]

Originally Posted by Jacksig

All of these police depts. have one thing the military never had, a police union.
They all know who the few bad apples are but their union comes in and prevents them from being fired.

I have said this many times. The union administration doesn’t want to lose people because it affects their bottom line and the salaries of the union officials.

[jjombrello]

Good analogy and good questions.

[OhioBuckeye]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

I spent almost 21 years in the Army, 1966 - 1986. The Army philosophy on problems in a unit was that they were caused by a lack of proper leadership. I have seen division commanders, Major General, and brigade commander, Colonel, relieved of duty for problems in subordinate units. Also numerous battalion and company commanders relieved of duty for problems in their unit. Right or wrong the thinking is that the commander should know what is going on in his command and correct any problems.

Police departments are not autonomous organizations operating as they see fit. ALL these cities where these past and recent questionable shootings and harassment have happened had a mayor and a city council that is charged with insuring their police department operates fairly and legally. I have no doubt that these problems have been known to the governor, mayor and city council but they did NOTHING about it! If they claim they weren't aware of it they are lying through their teeth or are complete morons. You be the judge.

If you look at the racial makeup of the elected leadership in these cities you will find that they are predominantly minorities and have been for years. Why weren't these problems corrected long ago??????? You have to wonder if they really give a damn about the people who elected them to office. Again, you be the judge.

Everyone is blaming the present federal administration for these problems and demanding corrective action. According to all the activists this problem is systemic and have been in place for years so why didn't the previous administration correct them? Why didn't the state and local governments do anything? Do we really want a federal government so powerful that states rights become a thing of the past?

Why haven't the so-called leaders resigned their office like the chief of police did that I mentioned earlier? The Chief failed in her job and so did the mayor and city council but yet they don't accept their own incompetence and blame the police officers. The problems are in the individual cities and states and who should know best how to take care of a local problem? Definitely not some bureaucrat in Washington, DC.

If this was a military organizaton, all these morons in local government would have been relieved. Since this is not the military maybe the voters should wake up and relieve them of their duties. I doubt that will happen because idiots elect idiots.

Number 10 GI, I think since both parties in the govt. can’t agree with what you want or the other 300 million people, l think you might be just be blowing hot air up all the politicians butts. The federal govt. is already doing that to our armed forces because the govt. tells them when to jump & not to jump.You should know our high up politicians are already doing that to all the 5 star generals & I don’t the military is going to give the president any jaw music. I think Prayer is the best order you can do right now & what’s going on here in the U.S.

[Debboguch50]

:BigApplaus e::BigAppla use:

[Curtisbwp]

I agree, the leadership has to hold their subordinates accountable at all times. As a squad leader in boot camp if three of my men got one strike each I had to serve the punnishment. It was MY responsibility. If one man had three hits, I and that man hed to be punished. Elected officials DO NOT have to take a rest or demonstrate their abilities. IT IS A SHAME.....
BWC/USN...ret

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

I spent almost 21 years in the Army, 1966 - 1986. The Army philosophy on problems in a unit was that they were caused by a lack of proper leadership. I have seen division commanders, Major General, and brigade commander, Colonel, relieved of duty for problems in subordinate units. Also numerous battalion and company commanders relieved of duty for problems in their unit. Right or wrong the thinking is that the commander should know what is going on in his command and correct any problems.

Police departments are not autonomous organizations operating as they see fit. ALL these cities where these past and recent questionable shootings and harassment have happened had a mayor and a city council that is charged with insuring their police department operates fairly and legally. I have no doubt that these problems have been known to the governor, mayor and city council but they did NOTHING about it! If they claim they weren't aware of it they are lying through their teeth or are complete morons. You be the judge.

If you look at the racial makeup of the elected leadership in these cities you will find that they are predominantly minorities and have been for years. Why weren't these problems corrected long ago??????? You have to wonder if they really give a damn about the people who elected them to office. Again, you be the judge.

Everyone is blaming the present federal administration for these problems and demanding corrective action. According to all the activists this problem is systemic and have been in place for years so why didn't the previous administration correct them? Why didn't the state and local governments do anything? Do we really want a federal government so powerful that states rights become a thing of the past?

Why haven't the so-called leaders resigned their office like the chief of police did that I mentioned earlier? The Chief failed in her job and so did the mayor and city council but yet they don't accept their own incompetence and blame the police officers. The problems are in the individual cities and states and who should know best how to take care of a local problem? Definitely not some bureaucrat in Washington, DC.

If this was a military organizaton, all these morons in local government would have been relieved. Since this is not the military maybe the voters should wake up and relieve them of their duties. I doubt that will happen because idiots elect idiots.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The federal government can - and should - require that state police abide by existing federal law with regards to discrimination, with search and seizure, warrants, use of deadly force, etc. The point of the state and local police is to protect citizens. When it's working right, that's all that's happening. Citizens are being protected. When it's not working right, there's a failure in the state or municipality, and the buck stops with its leader. But if its leader rejects change, rejects enforcement, rejects the protection of citizens, then there NEEDS to be a next level of authority to step in and say "hey - that ain't right. That's not what this country is about. We have some MINIMUM standards that we expect you to comply with."

That is the responsibility of the voters, they should not re-elect public officials if they don't do their job. It's that simple.

[jebartle]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

I spent almost 21 years in the Army, 1966 - 1986. The Army philosophy on problems in a unit was that they were caused by a lack of proper leadership. I have seen division commanders, Major General, and brigade commander, Colonel, relieved of duty for problems in subordinate units. Also numerous battalion and company commanders relieved of duty for problems in their unit. Right or wrong the thinking is that the commander should know what is going on in his command and correct any problems.

Police departments are not autonomous organizations operating as they see fit. ALL these cities where these past and recent questionable shootings and harassment have happened had a mayor and a city council that is charged with insuring their police department operates fairly and legally. I have no doubt that these problems have been known to the governor, mayor and city council but they did NOTHING about it! If they claim they weren't aware of it they are lying through their teeth or are complete morons. You be the judge.

If you look at the racial makeup of the elected leadership in these cities you will find that they are predominantly minorities and have been for years. Why weren't these problems corrected long ago??????? You have to wonder if they really give a damn about the people who elected them to office. Again, you be the judge.

Everyone is blaming the present federal administration for these problems and demanding corrective action. According to all the activists this problem is systemic and have been in place for years so why didn't the previous administration correct them? Why didn't the state and local governments do anything? Do we really want a federal government so powerful that states rights become a thing of the past?

Why haven't the so-called leaders resigned their office like the chief of police did that I mentioned earlier? The Chief failed in her job and so did the mayor and city council but yet they don't accept their own incompetence and blame the police officers. The problems are in the individual cities and states and who should know best how to take care of a local problem? Definitely not some bureaucrat in Washington, DC.

If this was a military organizaton, all these morons in local government would have been relieved. Since this is not the military maybe the voters should wake up and relieve them of their duties. I doubt that will happen because idiots elect idiots.

Hmmmmm! Where is the popcorn.????

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by davem4616

greed...they like the perks and the salary that goes along with the position

and all they have to do is to sweet talk the voting public to get re-elected

term limits...that's how you fix this problem

Term limits like 6 years would be my opinion for Supreme Court Justices.

[ffresh]

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Agreed. Policing is a state or local responsibility. Rules, regulations, organization, even penalties for poor performance or malfeasance, are for local elected officials to create and administer. The federal government can and should provide assistance with either materials or funding. But the federal government should not be in the business of creating laws which define how local police departments are managed.

So in the end, guess what, it will require everyone to make demands on their local elected officials responsible for policing.

I have to vehemently disagree with your contention that the federal government "can and should provide assistance with either materials or funding". Firstly, this is EXACTLY what has been going on for several decades, already, and the reason the police look like storm troopers descending upon the "enemy". Secondly, police, both in theory and in law, are and should remain - LOCAL. ALL things "government" should be handled at the level which is closest to the people as is feasible. This concept keeps responsibility and authority with the people. With federal funds comes federal CONTROL and it is another steep slope to tyranny. The feds have been "militarizing" local police forces for decades … to what end?

The Militarization Of Local Police Has Been Decades In The Making
“Even if you eliminated the hardware…at this point, ‘military’ is the culture of policing.”

By Molly Redden

The Militarization Of Local Police Has Been Decades In The Making | HuffPost

How America's Police Became an Army: The 1033 Program
You have been blocked

Fred

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Jacksig

All of these police depts. have one thing the military never had, a police union.

They all know who the few bad apples are but their union comes in and prevents them from being fired.

Yep...you nailed it.

When you have an entity, that fails to punish and police their own (unlike the military) and will go to bat (and usually win), especially when the union should be wanting them gone also, prosecutors and the "elected leadership's" options...are extremely limited.

The last I checked, no military branch enjoys "qualified immunity"...which is a big part of the problem.

In other words, the military takes care of their problems...without the impediment of a strong union.

And for my first 18 years, I can vouch that the threat of "your parent's are going to know about this" doesn't carry near the same fear/dread of "your father's CO is going to hear about this."



Then add on the OP's comment, in the first post...

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

If you look at the racial makeup of the elected leadership in these cities you will find that they are predominantly minorities and have been for years.

...and it's easy to determine another BIG part of the problem.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

Yep...you nailed it.

When you have an entity, that fails to punish and police their own (unlike the military) and will go to bat (and usually win), especially when the union should be wanting them gone also, prosecutors and the "elected leadership's" options...are extremely limited.

The last I checked, no military branch enjoys "qualified immunity"...which is a big part of the problem.

In other words, the military takes care of their problems...without the impediment of a strong union.

And for my first 18 years, I can vouch that the threat of "your parent's are going to know about this" doesn't carry near the same fear/dread of "your father's CO is going to hear about this."



Then add on the OP's comment, in the first post...



...and it's easy to determine another BIG part of the problem.

Here we go again with the baseless charges of racism, my reason for stating that the leadership in these cities are predominantly minority is that of anyone they should understand the problem better than nonminority. They have either ignored the problem or have no idea how to correct it and have done nothing. A leadership problem.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by BlackhawksFan

I was a member of a municipal firefighters union. The biggest problem is that the union, whether they like the person or not, agree or disagree with their actions, is charged with protecting each member equally. Ironic huh?

I know in my union we had several cases that led to terminations that the union got overturned, some extremely reluctantly, due to ineptness of city and department leadership to properly document facts and/or follow the progressive discipline plan laid out in the contract.

If you look at the employment backgrounds of these officers committing these crimes you see time and again, Officer X has 6 complaints of excessive force in X years, Officer Y has 8, etc. These guys get away with this because of administration issues and attorney's who are good at finding loopholes in the contract.

They continue to commit theses heinous, racist, deadly acts because they feel empowered to do so. Until cities and the unions get on board together to get rid of the bad officers and poor leadership this will continue to happen.

I even started this thread, to bring much of what you say to light.

Police Unions (poke here)

Your point about management often being lazy...is also dead on.

I managed more than a dozen non-union supervisors, of whom some became mad at me...because I wouldn't back their emotional/knee-jerk termination of someone.

When I brought the supervisor in to discuss, they would usually start talking about all of the things that the employee had done previously...which SHOULD/COULD have justified their termination.

The only problem?

The supervisor had been too lazy, to properly document all of the incidents and thereby create a 'trail' of progressive discipline...which was required by the CBA before termination.

And yet, they wanted to blame me...for not standing by their decision(s)?

To be honest, on the flip side, some of the actions my supervisors made or the actions they took...actually showed why a union was needed.

Of course, they didn't enjoy the same protection, when I had no choice but to discipline them.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

Yep...you nailed it.

When you have an entity, that fails to punish and police their own (unlike the military) and will go to bat (and usually win), especially when the union should be wanting them gone also, prosecutors and the "elected leadership's" options...are extremely limited.

The last I checked, no military branch enjoys "qualified immunity"...which is a big part of the problem.

In other words, the military takes care of their problems...without the impediment of a strong union.

And for my first 18 years, I can vouch that the threat of "your parent's are going to know about this" doesn't carry near the same fear/dread of "your father's CO is going to hear about this."



Then add on the OP's comment, in the first post...



...and it's easy to determine another BIG part of the problem.

Combat soldiers have a non-legal or moral quasi-immunity due to a "fog of war" situation. And they can get pardoned also. That can happen to Police, occasionally also. I imagine that is one reason why juries give them lots of leeway. That's why some Police feel "untouchable" and can get out of control. Society is on the cusp of changing attitudes on this, however. My opinion----I am not a legal scholar.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Here we go again with the baseless charges of racism, my reason for stating that the leadership in these cities are predominantly minority is that of anyone they should understand the problem better than nonminority. They have either ignored the problem or have no idea how to correct it and have done nothing. A leadership problem.

Also a money problem. Cities rely on property tax which is often voted on by people with a vested interest in keeping them low. This hampers needed social programs and enforcement branches together. Resource allocation is a big part of the problem.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

I even started this thread, to bring much of what you say to light.

Police Unions (poke here)

Your point about management often being lazy...is also dead on.

I managed more than a dozen non-union supervisors, of whom some became mad at me...because I wouldn't back their emotional/knee-jerk termination of someone.

When I brought the supervisor in to discuss, they would usually start talking about all of the things that the employee had done previously...which SHOULD/COULD have justified their termination.

The only problem?

The supervisor had been too lazy, to properly document all of the incidents and thereby create a 'trail' of progressive discipline...which was required by the CBA before termination.

And yet, they wanted to blame me...for not standing by their decision(s)?

To be honest, on the flip side, some of the actions my supervisors made or the actions they took...actually showed why a union was needed.

Of course, they didn't enjoy the same protection, when I had no choice but to discipline them.

I think that both rookie soldiers and Police should come from a pool formed by a nationwide draft. Then psychological tests, then physical tests. Then a model like Denmark that trains rookies for 3 years. Then sent to a permanent base or precinct or base. Then be there for 4 years. After which they can choose to go to a location of their choice. Or separate. Or finish their 20 years in the peace corps or other Federal or state programs, like wildlife officers. Details could vary but the idea is to have CITIZEN solders or Police, NOT, definitely NOT, MILITIA that are too "gung ho", bloodthirsty and might turn on either the elected government or just individual citizen that they do not like.