Is the person making the threat a police officer though?
I know here, the Union will make public statements on behalf of the Unions membership, whom just happen to be police, as opposed to the Force making statements themselves, to avoid this very issue. It’s taken as written that what you’re hearing is the opinion of the police, just shielded behind their non-sworn, privately funded representative.
1 Like
The only bit there that I think they’ll skip is the gen-pop bit. I feel like there would be a lot of people there willing to protect him, even if there was the odd crazy wanting to take a swing just because he’s famous. He doesn’t exactly full his movies with anti-crime, pro-cop messages. (I don’t think he does the opposite either, but it’s the prior that could get him shanked).
This assumes of course you meant “put in general population” so that he would be attacked.
This is very true, so the fact that I’m still managing to be surprised is really saying something…
I saw an interview with Ice-T some years ago where he said his agents told him the police were going to get him charged for sedition. When Ice-T asked what “sedition” was, he was told it is like “treason” and could carry a death penalty (I don’t know if this is true because… USA) and so he decided it wasn’t worth the trouble.
2 Likes
I came here to call out this terroristic threat by the leadership of a well-organized, well-armed, multi-100k force that is thoroughly dispersed throughout the country and in a position to do tremendous damage and cause a very large number of casualties whenever it pleases them.
But I see that’s already been addressed.
If any group besides the police made this threat, it would be treated as what it is. A bald-faced act of terrorism.
6 Likes
As someone who generally believes in unions I am sad to say I agree with you.
3 Likes
6 Abolish internal affairs and move oversight to a civilian review board
3 Likes
Critical addition, IMO.
4 Likes
The “civilian” part is the sad one - the police is a civilian organisation (in contrast to the army, a military organisation). Nowadays the LEOs seems to be thinking of themselves as (para-)military, an alarming development.
7 Likes
Since the FoP has basically stated publicly that they intend to frame a well-known person, what are the odds that people haven’t put them under surveillance?
2 Likes
Security for movie and television production is contracted with companies that supply this service. There may be some former police or military people involved, but mostly it’s guys like a bartender at one of my favorite watering holes - average Joes and Janes that can tackle someone efficiently or take a punch if need be.
2 Likes
I seem to remember that didn’t work too well in that documentary, “Robocop 2”…
DIRECTIVE 233: Restrain hostile feelings.
DIRECTIVE 234: Promote positive attitude.
DIRECTIVE 235: Suppress aggressiveness.
DIRECTIVE 236: Promote pro-social values.
DIRECTIVE 238: Avoid destructive behavior.
DIRECTIVE 239: Be accessible.
DIRECTIVE 240: Participate in group activities.
DIRECTIVE 241: Avoid interpersonal conflicts.
DIRECTIVE 242: Avoid premature value judgments.
DIRECTIVE 243: Pool opinions before expressing yourself.
DIRECTIVE 244: Discourage feelings of negativity and hostility.
DIRECTIVE 245: If you haven’t got anything nice to say, don’t talk.
DIRECTIVE 246: Don’t rush traffic lights.
DIRECTIVE 247: Don’t run through puddles and splash pedestrians or other cars.
DIRECTIVE 248: Don’t say that you are always prompt when you are not.
DIRECTIVE 249: Don’t be oversensitive to the hostility and negativity of others.
DIRECTIVE 250: Don’t walk across a ballroom floor swinging your arms.
DIRECTIVE 254: Encourage awareness.
DIRECTIVE 256: Discourage harsh language.
DIRECTIVE 258: Commend sincere efforts.
DIRECTIVE 261: Talk things out.
DIRECTIVE 262: Avoid Orion meetings.
DIRECTIVE 266: Smile.
DIRECTIVE 267: Keep an open mind.
DIRECTIVE 268: Encourage participation.
DIRECTIVE 273: Avoid stereotyping.
DIRECTIVE 278: Seek non-violent solutions.
1 Like
What “people” and who is “them” to be put under surveillance?
People, as in the world at large of people, who were told by them - Fraternal Order of Police - that they were relishing the planning of harming somebody through illegal means.
I will concede that non-government employees within the organization maintain some right to privacy, but argue that this does not apply to serving officials.
How would they do this and under what law? Wouldn’t this be the job of a law enforcement agency?
But if they’re making threats under color of authority, isn’t that at least a violation of civil rights law?
2 Likes
That would be up to them. How does surveillance usually work? Tracking devices, interferometry, recorders, social engineering, infiltration, etc.
US law is not required to enable an activity. That which is not prescribed is not forbidden, nor vice versa.
Wouldn’t law enforcement agencies investigating themselves and each other represent a conflict of interests?
It’s really a job for the citizens who are in charge, and/or whoever they trust with the task. So-called “watchdog organizations” who monitor law enforcement might be an obvious choice. More fundamentally - don’t give governmental bodies autonomy in the first place - then they aren’t constantly getting out of control and claiming to have their own agenda.
So you’re suggesting that the general public put the police union, at the national level, under surveillance?
But it isn’t a law enforcement agency. It is a union of people who work in law enforcement. There is a distinction.
I don’t expect the police to investigate them but, usually, matters of unions, corruption, and such at a national level (and this is a national union) are handled by the FBI, who aren’t police. That’s how the Teamsters, etc. were investigated.
Citizens can watch the police union all they want but I’m not sure what they’re going to get if you mean sit there with binoculars and notepads writing things down. I mean, you’re suggesting planting tracking devices (above) on cops who are in the police union? It’s that…illegal? It isn’t like citizens can subpoena records and the like. That’s why I said you’d need some kind of law enforcement if, you know, you’re investigating an actual criminal enterprise.
I’m pretty sure that ship sailed over 100 years ago. You going to call your state representative (assuming you actually are a registered voter) to see about a bill to roll back law enforcement autonomy? Do you think that will work?
This conversation is exactly the kind of thing that makes me question the practicality of your thought and philosophy in general. “Oh, just roll back 100+ years of established law and culture. Easy!” or “All the citizens can watch this national entity for wrong doing and bring any problems identified to…someone.” You have lots of ideas but little, seeming, thought about whether they are actually practical or how they would be put into place.
Yes, I thought that I was clear about that. But making a smart job of it would not involve monitoring the whole thing! Start with those few who are chuckling in public about their clever conspiracy, and work back from there.
I understand that. But it seems that most of them are public officials. If, as they suggest, Tarantino will be set upon by police - then they are indicating links between their organization’s activities and abuse of law enforcement by affiliated LEOs.
Do people doing public work in public have a reasonable expectation of privacy from the public who employ them? By the common police rhetoric of the time “If they are not trying to get away with anything, then they have nothing to fear”. Employers can monitor their employees as they work, the citizens of the US employ those who work in government, and so have a reasonable expectation (some may say, even, a responsibility) of being able to directly monitor their activities.
The investigation need not be a matter of criminal prosecution. It can be, in part, tactical - securing a better outcome by thwarting harmful actions - as well as simple civic duty and participation by giving some helpful guidance in the administration of law enforcement.
That ship can still be boarded, repurposed, or made into a nice coral reef. No, I don’t expect career politicians in a bogus representation racket to voluntarily surrender control. But if the public at large goes ahead and pushes for this, there wouldn’t be much they could do about it.
That’s fair enough in the abstract. But I find that in practice, people demand a stiffer burden of proof from me than most others here. I feel that I shouldn’t be singled out to need to write a whole thesis paper for every opinion I offer here. And even if I had time to, others might not appreciate that much extra detail. How is surveillance generally practical? How is framing Quentin Tarantino practical? People seem to take many weird things for granted in this world, but only require good accounts once I am the one saying them, which makes it seem like more of a personal difference, then one of philosophy and/or practicality.
This seems to be at the center of many of our discussions. Ideation and practice aren’t necessarily the same. If nobody is willing to do a thing, then it is easy to assume its impracticality. With social issues, what I do is try to encourage people to act, for us to create the structures needed to undertake what we need. This requires a lot of communication and negotiating. My experience of daily life is that most people are unwilling, and even terrified by the prospects of doing this. But when all they do is concede to having others run everything, it doesn’t feel like I am the one who is failing to put ideas into practice. I unfortunately often seem to be the only one around doing so. But that doesn’t make for a society.
It is a normal principle of labor organizing that managers are not part of the bargaining unit. If you have the power to hire and fire other workers, then you are not in the union.
Police powers go far beyond the power to hire and fire. Cops have the personal discretion to detain and release, to arrest, beat, and/or kill. Every LEO is a manager. They manage the public.
1 Like
