that’s probably tricky, cause the earliest unions were illegal themselves and often used tactics that were illegal in order to change law
law is sometimes not moral, or just. and that’s part of why unions exist.
that’s probably tricky, cause the earliest unions were illegal themselves and often used tactics that were illegal in order to change law
law is sometimes not moral, or just. and that’s part of why unions exist.
A much better angle is that the tools of authority do not need unions because they already hold all the power they need.
For them, unions are excess. Not foundational.
The police commissioners name is Outlaw.
And she’s the ‘good guy’. This is indeed the upside down.
One bad apple spoils the whole barrel.
We may never repair the damage to the public’s trust in the police after letting their behavior go unchecked for so long. I think we’ll have to seriously consider a change to the role that fully armed police officers have in our society. And assign different or new organizations to cover much of the work law enforcement has traditionally handled.
So not even really “down.”
Methinks you didn’t mean to reply @ me…
He’s only just turned himself in, he hasn’t been charged with anything yet, and the police union plans to defend him. He hasn’t been fired or even put on leave without pay, and he still has a very good chance of having no consequences enacted. So my comment was to say that calling him “down” is optimistic.
It sure didn’t take long for Danielle Outlaw’s Proud Boy and fascist thug friends to follow her from Portland to Philadelphia!
You raise an interesting point which begs the question: Was there ever a time/place when police were oppressed in a way that required organization? My gut says no but I’d love to be educated on if there was a time.
I very much doubt it. Police are the tools of the powerful. They’re the ones who do the oppressing and get paid for it.
Don’t defend, DEFUND!
Arguably their fashion sense has regressed from snazzy uniforms to tacticool wrap-around sunglasses meatheads
This would be an excellent case to apply “eye for an eye” justice.
It also bothered me when they migrated from boxy, family automobiles to muscle cars.
Well he’s not a Liberty
He may be a Bloody Ploughman
But none of them like being a Limelight (no link - no wikipedia page for that variety)
(That’s enough apple varieties … Ed)
Of course they should. It’s obvious. And all complaints against the police should be dealt with by an entirely separate and independent authority. Accused police can be advised / accompanied by their union rep as needed, but the union itself should have no role.
Philly police always stand a very good chance of skating on charges or discipline. I was on the Police Advisory (Oversight) Commission. Even when we recommended discipline- it was rarely instituted. And we had subpoena power.
How do you know they own jack-boots?
Hooray, that’s one Patriotic American who still has a chance to keep his job and keep doing extreme crowd control on civilians with chemical irritants banned in wartime!! Yay!!
They seem clearly attempting at escalate the fights instead of the other way around, which should be their duty when possible. Are they trying to bring people to a 2nd amendment test?
I ask because at least to date it appears that the only people showing interest in using 2nd amendment are fascist racist assholes, Karens, Kens, and other idiots with small penis syndrome. So what happens when people who usually wouldn’t give a shit about having firearms decide that enough is enough? Do they really want that?