The insubordinate NYPD officers should be fired and their fans banned from DU

[tenderfoot]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by MerryBlooms (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Happy Monday!

[leftofcool]

1. Dems should be banned from DU for their opinions?

[pintobean]

3. Just those with the wrong opinions

The devil gets to decide who stays.

[pintobean]

12. I didn't alert on this ^^

Someone sent me the jury results, and Juror #3 thinks I was the alerter. I very rarely alert on replies to me.

[Kingofalldems]

22. I love that story.

Great stuff.

[pintobean]

23. I love the fact

that you think that if you don't like someone, you get to call them a liar. Are there lies of mine somewhere that you can link to, that might justify such twisted logic?

[Kingofalldems]

24. I didn't call you a liar as to what happened today.

I do not agree with sentence #3 though.

[pintobean]

25. But, you called me a liar

Twice now. The links, "king" - where are the links? What, in your mind, justifies this accusation? How could you possibly know?

[Lurks Often]

7. The "Purity Police" are out again

I don't know where they get the delusional idea that they are somehow in charge of a website they don't own or run.

[Iggo]

19. That ain't purity testing.

[Lurks Often]

28. I was being polite and avoiding a hidden post

[Iggo]

34. I'm hip.

[backscatter712]

46. We don't allow right-wingers here, do we? n/t

[branford]

50. "Right-winger" is not defined as those who disagree with the OP.

There are a range of opinions concerning the NYPD from numerous perspectives that are consistent with the Democratic platform and principles, likely to both the left and right of the OP.

Based on other posts by the OP, it also appears that he considers DU members who strongly oppose the content of the message sent by the NYPD officers who turned their backs to the mayor, yet defend their labor and free speech rights to convey the message, to still be "fans" of the NYPD worthy of censure. Such a binary "with him or against him" position is precisely the type of mindset I though was repugnant to most liberals.

[One_Life_To_Give]

2. If Wis PD turned their backs on Gov. Walker

If Wis PD turned their backs on Gov. Walker would you say the same? Or do we have different rules depending upon our opinions?

I am not ready to tell Union Rank and File that they are not allowed to turn their backs to their CEO's

[tenderfoot]

4. If....

that hasn't happened. Why the change in subject?

[aikoaiko]

8. Because some people place principles over partisanship.

[pipi_k]

18. I don't see it as a change of subject

And I would ask a similar question.

What if de Blasio were a Republican?

What a dilemma that would be! Who's more evil? The police, or a Republican?


If it's wrong, it's wrong for everybody. Not just for a group mostly vilified by one political party or the other.

[randys1]

27. If Wis PD turned their backs on Walker it would be because Walker destroyed their union,

gutted their pensions and basically starved and killed some of them as a result.

And while I am no longer in support of police unions in general until they are disarmed along with the rest of society, when we do disarm (obey the 2nd amendment and act like adults) and their unions are valid and strong again (in my utopia which exists because we threw out psychopath Scalia's "Heller" decision), someone like Walker will try and destroy them, for reasons that are abhorrent

NOT BECAUSE Walker had a talk with his biracial son, which is the reason these puke fucks in NY are doing it.

This whole issue allows us to address the INSANITY of guns, if we are grown up enough and mature enough to handle it, that is.

[joeglow3]

42. So people can legally protest only if you agree with their reasoning?

[NYC Liberal]

45. If they're off the clock and/or not in their work uniform they can do what they want.

[R B Garr]

51. Exactly. "NOT BECAUSE Walker had a talk with his biracial son,

which is the reason these puke fucks in NY are doing it."

You don't get to kill someone with impunity and then "protest" those that rightly call you out on it. That's just madness.

[NYC Liberal]

43. I'm pretty sure most people are disgusted more by the REASON they did it

than the action itself. (Oh, and the fact that they did it at a freaking FUNERAL service.)

[Lurks Often]

6. So much for free speech & due process

Be careful of what you wish for, if you get your way it will likely set a legal precedent to fire other public employee union members when they protest.

[Quackers]

10. When did this become MonarchyUnderground?

[Maedhros]

55. When Obama was elected. [n/t]

[snooper2]

11. It is pretty cold outside

[ann---]

14. I'm with you

Yes, I agree they should be fired but nobody should be banned from DU solely for their opinion. Although, a lot of the posts that questioned the behavior of the ebola nurse in Newark were sent to the jury by her fans.

[msanthrope]

47. I sent one to the jury because of your use of sexist language. They agreed. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Bless your heart.

[KingCharlemagne]

16. Although I am a harsh critic of current police policies and practices, I strongly

disagree with you. You cannot suppress speech simply because you disagree with it or find it offensive, lest that same practice be turned against you and your allies when there is an issue that you deem important.

[randys1]

30. But it is not speech, it is an employee showing contempt and potentially a threat to their

employer, who is both the Mayor and the citizens of NY...

This has nothing to do with speech, if they turn their back on some celebrity who said something that hewt their wittle feelings, fine...very different

This whole thing goes back to unions and guns...I wish we could get the rest of the country to see where the real problem lies, and it isnt in the speech issue...

With all due respect, I am not arguing with you, just conversing in general...




"I am not arguing with you about that"

was it in Tom Hanks movie, Volcano Joe or something

[KingCharlemagne]

32. IANAL so let me get that out front. My understanding is that the cops who attended the

funeral were not on duty at the time, i.e., not being paid, and thus entitled to the same right to turn their backs as any citizen would have. The only issue would be if their contract with NY City prohibited them from engaging in activities disrespectful to the NYPD or its uniform while wearing that uniform (whether on or off duty). Now there I must plead ignorance as to specifically what their contract prohibits or permits. I also understand that Bratton did not -- indeed legally could not -- order the cops to do x, y or z while they were off duty.

The reason we have a First Amendment is to protect speech with which we disagree, so that our speech when found disagreeable by whoever happens to be in charge is still allowed free expression.

All that said, I find the actions of those NYPD cops who turned their backs beneath contempt and worthy of harsh condemnation. But I still support the 'right' of the NYPD to engage in speech that is not otherwise forbidden by their employment contract.

I have to say that the comments of a DUer named 'Branford' have been highly influential in shaping my thinking on this matter. Weirdly enough, Branford and I have mixed it up on more than one occasion about other policing matters. But on this, I must say that I am in agreement with him or her.

[randys1]

33. I totally understand and agree, unless or until their action can be construed as

a threat NOT to provide protection or to do their jobs.

I consider the back turning to be a direct threat, that what they are saying is you best not need our help, Mayor, if you are being robbed or something, and I think they intend for that threat to apply to ALL NY citizens who support the mayor.

I think they do this shit because they think they are kings, that the law does not apply to them and they will god damn decide who gets police protection and who doesn't based solely on their racist attitudes.

But I still get where you are coming from, which is why I say simply remove police unions from existence until they are not armed to the teeth and randomly shooting and killing people with zero consequence, which again cant happen until you disarm everyone in compliance with the 2nd amendment.

I see your position and agree with it, but I want to use this defiance and racism on their part to shine a light on the real problem...

We would not be so concerned with what they think if they werent armed to the teeth and shooting people or strangling them whenever they feel like it.

[branford]

35. My issue has always been union and labor rights, despite the asinine displays by the officers.

First, back turning to authority figures is an entirely peaceful and well-recognized means of political, non-campaign, protest. In fact, it is routinely employed by liberals, notably on college campuses concerning graduation speakers. You may find the back-turning offensive, and I largely agree, but as a legal matter, it is nowhere near a direct threat of anything to anyone.

More importantly, Democrats should encourage greater unionization and solidarity with labor, not try to find reasons why groups we may not always agree should not be permitted to benefit from the policies we claim to support. It is precisely this king of "divide and conquer" mindset used by people like Scott Walker and the Kochs.

In this instance, regardless of one's personal feelings about the content of the message from the police officers, they are unquestionably unionized public employees, and entitled to all the benefits and protections provided by the Constitution, federal, state and city labor laws, and the relevant collective bargaining agreements. Accordingly, although I strongly disagree with the police officers' message, I fully support their right to convey it without government sanction or discipline.

If by some mechanism the officers were disciplined or their unions crushed, a virtual legal and practical impossibility here in NYC, it would set horrific legal and political precedents that would forever haunt other unions and public employees. Never forget that even in a liberal areas like NYC, we were governed recently by conservatives for 20 years, and battles between mayors of both parties and public employees are commonplace. Could you imagine what would have happened to the teachers for their comments and actions during their epic battles with Rudy Giuliani if he had a fraction of the discretionary authority that many now wish deBlasio could employ against the NYPD?

[randys1]

44. Lots to digest there and all good stuff, but students turning their back to speakers

is not the same as someone sworn to uphold the law turning their back on those they have sworn to protect. I absolutely believe the turning of the back is an implied threat not to protect.

And as to unions, yes, huge problem...Here we have people all over the country who desperately need unions who dont carry guns and shoot people, but they will die before they will get one.

And then we have a union which is literally defending murderers. I wish there was an easy fix, and I have supplied one.

Dont want to lose their union?

Fine, then enforce the 2nd amendment the way it is written NOT the way that psychopath Scalia interpreted it, limit ALL guns to locked up, well regulated militias, thus removing the argument the cops have for being armed to the teeth.

No, it wont happen as long as we have the NRA and rightwingers, but it is what should happen.

And again, for the debate here, a cop doesnt have free speech on the job, and when they show up at a cop function with cop clothes on, they are on the job. Free speech isnt relevant at that point, especially if the speech can be construed as a veiled threat.

I am glad we have true liberals like yourself and others here arguing with me, saying that we must protect their union, because I am the biggest union supporter I know and it took me until Garner before I turned on them and their union, up until then I would have been on your side of the argument, but that one pushed me off the edge.

The working relationship between the DA and cops is the root of the problem, really (outside of the gun issue which is the basis for all these problems) and I dont know a way to indict and hold trial for a cop in court and NOT have the DA do it...Should each county have a sub set of attorneys who take cops to trial who are not hitched at the hip with the cops?

Note: I thought the cops who did the back turning were in uniform at the time, maybe that isnt the case, not sure

[joeglow3]

48. How could the NYPD have protested a politician they disagreed with without it being a threat?

[branford]

52. Your rationale would render virtually all political protest by police as illegal,

and by extension, potentially all public employees.

No court would accept such reasoning, no less in New York state with strong public employee protections.

[joeglow3]

54. That was my point

[branford]

49. Respectfully, you're making distinctions between police officers and other members of the public

that are not recognized in law or even public opinion. Police are civilians, like all other public employees and citizens, and generally entitled to express their opinions, regardless of whether they are offensive or disrespectful to authority, particularly when not on-duty. That certainly does not mean police officers are free from criticism, only that the government cannot punish them, including through employment discipline.

Further, I do not doubt you sincerely believe the police officers' actions constituted a threat, but the conduct definitely would not be considered an actionable legal threat in breach of any statute or union contractual provision. Free speech permits far worse than fairly banal back-turning, booing or other similar activity.

As you also appear to acknowledge, much of your criticism concerning police unions has far more to do with your objections concerning current Second Amendment and related jurisprudence than labor protections or free speech. You'll need a radical transformation of gun rights and culture before your basis to distinguish police unions would ever be considered by any court or legislature.

[2banon]

59. You make an interesting point, albeit ironic as hell. :)

Police are civilians, like all other public employees and citizens, and generally entitled to express their opinions, regardless of whether they are offensive or disrespectful to authority, particularly when not on-duty.

It's the "disrespectful to authority" part that makes me choke on my afternoon tea..

They do not respect citizens right to express their-selves, most especially an iota of disrespect to authority. the irony that we must acknowledge them as "private" citizens is a bit more bitter pill to take.

[mythology]

58. There was not a threat.

You inferred a threat, but there is nothing in turning their backs during a speech that threatens violence.

It's stupid childish and makes the cops look bad, but it isn't a threat.

[stevenleser]

17. I think the right approach is to write them up for it or raise it as an issue during their review.

Those who did this should not get promotions/raises this year.

[branford]

36. That would be considered discipline.

If the officers' lawful political activity affected the terms and conditions of their employment, it would be both unlawful and a violation of their collective bargaining agreements.

No rank-and-file police officer has to demonstrate political support for elected officials as a condition of employment. Anything else would be truly frightening in a democracy.

[stevenleser]

37. And it should be discipline. You should not be able to disrespect your boss or bosses boss.

if that is unlawful, the law should be changed.

[branford]

39. You'll need to radically change most modern jurisprudence

concerning the First Amendment, due process, the National Labor Relations Act and related state, federal and local labor and civil rights laws, and standards for interpretation and review of municipal collective bargaining agreements. Much of this jurisprudence was historically championed by liberal and progressive groups.

In the process, you'll probably decimate the employment, speech and general political rights and interests of public sector employees and their unions, the vast majority of whom are loyal liberal Democrats.

Your complaint really appears to be that the police officers used their labor and speech rights to convey a message you (and I) find objectionable. There are political means to address this without handing labor in this country even more setbacks.

[stevenleser]

40. No, I won't. It's already illegal in the military. Any armed force under civilian control needs to

respect the elected civilian authority over it. And yes, I know that the military is subject to the UCMJ.

The police should not be able to fight elected civilian control of them. That is dangerous bullshit.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

56. And I don't think teachers should be able to strike

I mean....what about all those kids who won't have anyone to care for them?

And nurses shouldn't be able to strike. Patients depend on them.

And garbage collectors shouldn't be able to strike - good grief! Consider the smell and the health hazard!

Firefighters shouldn't have the right to strike - somebody might die in a fire.

.....

No, you can't single out one union, and the police are not the military, even if they have been too militarized as of late.

/sarcasm if you didn't get it above.

[hack89]

57. The military are a unique class of people in the eyes of the law

Where their commanders routinely send them to certain death and where the ability to enforce absolute obedience to orders is paramount. That is why they surrender many rights that everyday citizens (including public employees) enjoy.

The military has to respect civilian authority because there is a law that applies only to them that says they must. There is no such law that applies to the police.

[bluesbassman]

20. Protest is and should be an honored democratic principle.

While I don't agree with the cop's method in this case, I do honor their right to do so. What I do not abide is their work stoppage as a method of protest. They have a job to do that required an oath and if they are willing to cast aside that oath then they should quit in protest or have the fortitude to enact a full strike and let the chips fall where they may.

Suggesting that people should be banned from a discussion board for an opinion on this matter is unacceptable and frankly shows a distinct level of intolerance of ideas and a lack of debating skills.

[randys1]

31. Protesting by implying with your actions that both the Mayor and citizens who support him will NOT

be protected by the NYPD

[stevenleser]

41. That's part of the problem with what they are doing. The other part is they have to respect

the elected officials that the citizens of their jurisdiction elected over them. For any armed force not to do that is really a move in the direction of a police state.

[bravenak]

21. I'm fine with that.

[kelly1mm]

26. And apples! I hate apples! Anyone who likes them is obviously not fit to breath DU air. Be

gone with thee ........

or maybe not ......

[FSogol]

29. "All of our Congressmen and Senators are Communist Spies. Des Moines, Iowa deserves a major league

baseball team, and Dan Rather speaks in a secret code that I hope to have broken by next week...." - Bob and Ray.

[sendero]

38. Nobody should be banned for an opinion...

.... however, I would only see such an opinion one time, as the poster would instantly join my Ignore list. I don't have to listen to that kind of idiocy.

Ignore is your friend.

[PoliticAverse]

53. I thought trolling in General Discussion was banned. n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

60. It was rude

but not insubordination.

[Corey_Baker08]

61. I Would Like To Believe That Sarcasm Is Intended In This Post...

I am absolutely disgusted with the actions of these Police Officers & what they did was so disrespectful, their actions cannot be justified in my opinion.

However just as they have the right to protest, We also have not only the right but the responsibility to speak up and speak out about the manner in which they chose to protest, all the while respecting the 1st Amendment and the right of Unions to protest, even if you disagree with their methods & reason's, like I very much disagree with the actions of the NYPD Officers involved.

[MerryBlooms]

62. Locking. Host consensus- Calling for the banning of DU members is Disruptive Meta.

DISRUPTIVE META-DISCUSSION

Positive threads about Democratic Underground or its members are are permitted.

Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978