Police use of force

[Timsup2nothin]

Investors as in shareholders...as in stock companies. If the Mayor fired all the police he would have a nightmare on his hands.

Well, the first question would be how we got from cops (who are city employees) into discussion of investors' rights, but that aside.

Given the current state of recognition by the public that 'to protect and serve' is a joke, a mayor who went on a widespread housecleaning among the police would probably not be viewed poorly by the public. The kind of reforms that are desperately needed are not going to get accomplished without widespread dismissals of the current officers anyway, so starting with the officers who blatantly disrespect the elected embodiment of their employers is as good a place as any.

 

[Darkflight]

If soldiers resent their commanding officer, can they turn their backs on him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging

 

[Labtec600]

If soldiers resent their commanding officer, can they turn their backs on him?

Ever watch Generation Kill?

 

[bhsup]

Nope, but then again the NYPD is not subject to the UCMJ either. But also, surely the Mayor isn't technically their boss anyway, is he? Surely the Police Commissioner or whatever the title is in NYC would be the actual boss.

Sure, realistically if a mayor wanted a particular cop fired, he'd probably get his way, but telling the police force to fire hundreds of cops at once? Political suicide. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that a lot of them weren't even NYC cops and couldn't give two craps what the mayor of NYC says regardless. I'd like to see the mayor of NYC tell the Royal Mounties to fire one of their guys.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nope, but then again the NYPD is not subject to the UCMJ either. But also, surely the Mayor isn't technically their boss anyway, is he? Surely the Police Commissioner or whatever the title is in NYC would be the actual boss.

Sure, realistically if a mayor wanted a particular cop fired, he'd probably get his way, but telling the police force to fire hundreds of cops at once? Political suicide. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that a lot of them weren't even NYC cops and couldn't give two craps what the mayor of NYC says regardless. I'd like to see the mayor of NYC tell the Royal Mounties to fire one of their guys.

Why political suicide? I think the possibility of running on a platform of police reform is becoming viable, in NY maybe even more than in most places. The old 'law and order hire more cops' standard is looking more iffy every day. And cops who openly defy the mayor are not going to be seen as willing to participate in the changes that need to be made, so one way or another they are going to have to go. The LAPD went through massive reforms after the riots...and it involved a huge turnover of personnel. Anyone who thinks the necessary reforms can be made without turning over a huge fraction of the personnel is kidding themselves.

 

[bhsup]

Well then let's not stop there. Bosses should be able to mass fire any group that "defies" them. Like striking workers.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well then let's not stop there. Bosses should be able to mass fire any group that "defies" them. Like striking workers.

Strikes by unionized workers aren't defiance or disrespect, they are collective bargaining. When unions are used as collective bargaining agencies I have no problem with the it, since that is their function.

When a union steps forward and says 'we will respond collectively in the event of appropriate discipline being applied to one of our members' that isn't what they were intended for. The blue wall of unity protecting thugs who prey on the public that pays them all is so far beyond the intent as to discredit the entire concept.

 

[bhsup]

Well I am still trying to figure out how turning their backs is defiance. Were they ordered in advance to face the big screen? Were they under orders not to turn their backs on him? What, exactly, did they defy? And also, is he actually their boss in any legal way that he can go up to a cop and say "you're fired" and boom, that's that? No other paperwork or approval by any police official required? Just the mayor saying "you're fired" and they're fired? And again, you never address how he's going to fire all the cops that were not NYPD that did it.

P.S. - Did oyu know, btw, that the NYPD union and the city are not having good pay negotiations right now? They might be heading towards arbitration. So seeing as you support union folks doing what they gotta do to get their message across...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well I am still trying to figure out how turning their backs is defiance. Were they ordered in advance to face the big screen? Were they under orders not to turn their backs on him? What, exactly, did they defy? And also, is he actually their boss in any legal way that he can go up to a cop and say "you're fired" and boom, that's that? No other paperwork or approval by any police official required? Just the mayor saying "you're fired" and they're fired? And again, you never address how he's going to fire all the cops that were not NYPD that did it.

P.S. - Did oyu know, btw, that the NYPD union and the city are not having good pay negotiations right now? They might be heading towards arbitration. So seeing as you support union folks doing what they gotta do to get their message across...

Actually, yes, they were told ahead of time by their legitimate superiors to not make any open display of disrespect for the mayor. So whether the mayor can say 'you are fired' or not there should be disciplinary action applied by those superiors who were defied.

As to the negotiations between the police union and the city...I'm not averse to the Ronald Reagan approach to workers who are considered vital to public safety. If they strike they get fired. While I support collective bargaining for labor, my views on unionized public employees are very different.

 

[MobBoss]

Well then let's not stop there. Bosses should be able to mass fire any group that "defies" them. Like striking workers.

You mean like how Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers?

 

[Phrossack]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging

Ever watch Generation Kill?

I was asking whether MobBoss, who supports insubordination amongst the police whenever they feel slighted by their boss, would support similar insubordination in the military.

Somehow I think the answer would be "no."

 

[bhsup]

You mean like how Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers?

Yep! Though admittedly Tim and I found an area of agreement there. I have no issue with that action because 1) it was already illegal to begin with for them to strike and 2) they hold a position of in charge of public safety.

I was asking whether MobBoss, who supports insubordination amongst the police whenever they feel slighted by their boss, would support similar insubordination in the military.

Somehow I think the answer would be "no."

"No" because, as I pointed out earlier, police are not military and are not subject to the UCMJ.

These were cops that were not on the clock, not on duty, and should not be punished for exercising in free speech on their own time, which is what I would call what they were doing. They were conveying a message to the mayor. Cue "but what about rioters and their right to free speech" blah blah blah from the expected crowd...

 

[Berzerker]

The real question would be is a large tax on cigarettes moral? If the people of the state are of the mind to try and reduce cigarette smoking to as much of an extent possible (for the obvious reasons) then one could argue that such a sin tax is indeed moral (where I live in Washington State said sin tax is even higher on cigarettes and alcohol, even though it is considered a very liberal state).

I guess my opinion is that such a tax is neither really moral or immoral - it just is. And since its overall objective appears to be in reducing smoking in the citizenry (something generally considered a moral cause by the vast majority) and it presumably achieves that end (as it has here where I live) then most would probably argue it being a moral law.

This guy was selling individual cigarettes at a price comparable to or more than they'd cost in a taxed pack. Not everyone wants to buy them in packs because they'll smoke more whereas they can buy 1-2 from this guy. He's providing the very service - reducing tobacco use - cited as "justification" by the city.

So if its moral for the city, why aint it moral for him? Those cops were removing this man's moral contribution to the city's goal of reducing consumption. He wasn't competing with the city and the cigarettes were taxed. It shouldn't matter if they were bought in another state.

Why would you consider the tax itself immoral? Because of how much it is? What if the neighboring state had a similar sized sin tax? Still immoral? Or does it become moral by virtue of being similar in value to its neighbors?

The only taxes I consider moral are user fees. "Sin" taxes seek to punish people for violating the state's religion, we are not free if government is the tool of moral crusaders. A sin tax violates the 1st Amendment, no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Question, if reducing smoking is moral, then couldn't it be the state with the low tax on cigarettes having the immoral tax?

They'd both have an immoral tax, the larger tax is worse since it is more punitive and may create a black market.

No, he simply died because he resisted arrest and was in bad health.

He died because somebody told those cops to stop him.

And it wasn't the politicians that told the cops to arrest them - its the local shop owners that called the cops, not the politicians.

Politicians wrote the law and hired people to enforce it

and those people are paid with $$$ taken from others whether they like it or not... No, government is not moral. Its "do this or die"...

 

[MobBoss]

This guy was selling individual cigarettes at a price comparable to or more than they'd cost in a taxed pack. Not everyone wants to buy them in packs because they'll smoke more whereas they can buy 1-2 from this guy. He's providing the very service - reducing tobacco use - cited as "justification" by the city.

So you're ok with a guy selling untaxed cigarettes unrestricted to say, minors? Cause that's most likely what was precisely happening.

He wasn't helping reduce tobacco use - and the very idea that you would consider it so is just ridiculous.

So if its moral for the city, why aint it moral for him?

Because the cigarettes he was selling were unstamped. That means they had not been taxed at all. Nor would he be subject to the other laws regarding cigarette vending.

Or are you now going to claim he was checking IDs of minors to not sell to them?



Come on man.

Those cops were removing this man's moral contribution to the city's goal of reducing consumption. He wasn't competing with the city and the cigarettes were taxed. It shouldn't matter if they were bought in another state.

No, the cigarettes he was selling were not taxed. They were unstamped cigarettes which means he didn't just buy them in a local store and resell them. They were bootleg cigarettes which hadn't been taxed at all.

Yeah, you've pretty much jumped the shark on this. Next!

The only taxes I consider moral are user fees. "Sin" taxes seek to punish people for violating the state's religion, we are not free if government is the tool of moral crusaders. A sin tax violates the 1st Amendment, no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Shark. Jumped.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like sin taxes anymore than the next person, but seriously - that 'establishment of religion' argument you just tried - come on man.

He died because somebody told those cops to stop him.

No, because they had stopped him several times prior to that with no harm to him what-so-ever. He died because he didn't want to be arrested again.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't look at taxes on cigarettes as a "morality" tax, rather as a financial bar that makes it more difficult for people to poison themselves. Considering that everyone else pays for medical treatment for the poor & unhealthy, and poor people are more likely to be smokers, it's in the non-smoker's interest to have a cigarette tax, to save money on health insurance payments and taxes for Medicare/Medicaid. This uses the fact that poor people are poor against them by making it more financially difficult for them to get cigarettes, in hopes that they will smoke less and be more healthy. It's not a moral imperative because "smoking is bad" or "healthiness is good." It's a financial interest to lower healthcare costs.

If you want to reduce this to pure mercenary interest in dictating what other people do with their own lives consider a couple things. Poor people are more likely to smoke regularly and less likely to have access to more effective cessation programs. Taxing them harder merely takes money away from other things they would have to spend on, like perhaps medical care, which then comes back out of the pockets of the public treasury anyhow. Also, who pays heavily for care for our seniors during their last years of deteriorating health? The public treasury. Who lives an average of ~6ish years extra during the phase of life when they consume by far health costs coupled with a lessened ability to draw a wage? Non smokers. People who argue of public interest in using the stick of taxes to discourage smoking are either mistaken or lying about the reasoning. The only actual decent argument to make indeed is the moralizing prohibitionist one. It stands on it's chosen leg. The mercenaries would do better to be handing out cigarettes for free to get people started.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yep! Though admittedly Tim and I found an area of agreement there. I have no issue with that action because 1) it was already illegal to begin with for them to strike and 2) they hold a position of in charge of public safety."No" because, as I pointed out earlier, police are not military and are not subject to the UCMJ.

These were cops that were not on the clock, not on duty, and should not be punished for exercising in free speech on their own time, which is what I would call what they were doing. They were conveying a message to the mayor. Cue "but what about rioters and their right to free speech" blah blah blah from the expected crowd...

Guess what, free speech doesn't mean there are no consequences when you flap your mouth. If you spend your off hours embarrassing your employer you end up with no employer. Rightfully enough.

 

[MobBoss]

Guess what, free speech doesn't mean there are no consequences when you flap your mouth. If you spend your off hours embarrassing your employer you end up with no employer. Rightfully enough.

One could say these are the consequences Blasio faces for flapping his own mouth.

 

[bhsup]

If you spend your off hours embarrassing your employer you end up with no employer. Rightfully enough.

I actually agree with you when it comes to the private sector. But when it comes to public sector employees? No. Don't you think there should be protection against being fired for political reasons?

Oh, and look who agrees with me. The Supreme Court! And while I frequently disagree with their rulings, I have always said the rulings should be obeyed because that is how our country works. Just convenient that it's in my favor this time.

Pickering v Board of Education considered the case of a public school teacher fired for writing a letter to a newspaper critical of the local school board. In ordering the teacher reinstated, the Court found that a public employee's statements on a matter of public concern could not be the basis for discharge unless the statement contained knowing or reckless falsehoods, or the statements were of the sort to cause a substantial interference with the ability of the employee to continue to do his job.

 

[Borachio]

If you want to reduce this to pure mercenary interest in dictating what other people do with their own lives consider a couple things. Poor people are more likely to smoke regularly and less likely to have access to more effective cessation programs. Taxing them harder merely takes money away from other things they would have to spend on, like perhaps medical care, which then comes back out of the pockets of the public treasury anyhow. Also, who pays heavily for care for our seniors during their last years of deteriorating health? The public treasury. Who lives an average of ~6ish years extra during the phase of life when they consume by far health costs coupled with a lessened ability to draw a wage? Non smokers. People who argue of public interest in using the stick of taxes to discourage smoking are either mistaken or lying about the reasoning. The only actual decent argument to make indeed is the moralizing prohibitionist one. It stands on it's chosen leg. The mercenaries would do better to be handing out cigarettes for free to get people started.

I just don't agree.

It's true that the elderly consume the lion's share of the health budget. But to conclude that non-smokers therefore represent a net drain on the nations finances greater than that of smokers is jumping to conclusions, to say the least. You'd need to produce some rather startling statistics to convince me that smokers are getting the short end of the stick on this. How would you measure how much smoking costs the economy in terms of time off sick, for example? How do you know that non-smokers don't contribute much more than their smoking colleagues over their life times, and how do you know that non-smokers don't experience much fewer health problems? And a great number of other questions need answering.

But I guess you're speaking as a smoker. Let's hope you aren't serious.

 

[Farm Boy]

I cannot find the studies I found. It's simply a matter of parsing out how much more a year during prime life a smoker is likely to cost in care, how likely they are to die early costing working years minus the effect of non full employment being likely to refill the job in a timely manner, then tally that against the half decade plus a little bit extra that non smokers tend to draw their well earned benefits from society particularly if no longer working. Plus the cost of squatting on jobs in non full employment if still working.

Here's the thing B, as a smoker I hate that I started. I'd love to sit around for a while and burden society with my presence drawing benefits from a lifetime of working contributions. That sounds lovely. But that doesn't mean the ''we're acting for the interest of the public treasury'' argument has a leg to stand on here. The ''do what I say is good for you'' argument is what it is, but at least it's arguing a cogent point. I can actually almost agree with it.