NY Senate Passes Bill That Would Add Cops And Firemen To List Of Protected Classes Under State's Hate Crime Law
from the those-poor-underprivileged-authority-figures dept
Because good ideas are rare but bad ideas eternal, the New York State Senate has just given its blessing to a stupid bill aimed at protecting people armed with guns, power, the weight of the law, and numerous immunity options. The "justification" for New York's addition of cops and first responders to the state's hate crime law is this:
There has been an increase in mortality rates of law enforcement officers, firefighters, corrections officers and emergency medical services personnel, within the past decade. In a report by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund in 2014, statistics showed that approximately "126 federal, state, local, tribal and territorial officers died in the line of duty" which exhibited an increase in comparison to 2012 and 2013. The increase in the death toll has been in part, due to offenses intentionally aimed to harm first responders.
This is followed by a bunch of anecdotes about officers and first responders being on the receiving end of supposedly "targeted" violence. It adds nothing to the "justification" but a few presentation-worthy stories to sway emotions of fellow legislators. It doesn't make the preceding statement any more correct. It's actually misleading and wrong in equal parts.
First off, an increase in "mortality rates" is not the same thing as an increase in violence directed at law enforcement officers. The stats legislators are attempting to point to include all deaths in the line of duty, whether they were at the hands of civilians or not. So, this stat is already sort of misleading, albeit only because of the way this bill's sponsors have phrased it.
Second, the stats the justification quotes are wrong. There were 136 deaths in 2014, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. That's more than what's stated here. Worrying? Not even close. It's 20 more than 2013, but one less than 2012's total. In other words, the stats show no sort of increase that might justify giving police officers more protection. If these legislators weren't trying to cherry pick, they might have included 2011's total of 178, which is fifty more deaths than the supposedly-shocking number quoted in the bill's justification.
Just so everyone's aware who's pushing to make an abusable law even more easily-abused, here's the bipartisan group of sponsors.
Fred Akshar [R] - Longtime law enforcement officer, having served as undersheriff for Broome County before turning to politics.
Patrick M. Gallivan [R] - former Erie County Sheriff (1998-2005), preceded by 15 years with the New York State Police, and followed by a stint on the state parole board. One of several state legislators found to have faked leadership positions in the Senate to get a little unearned extra pay added onto their paychecks.
Tony Avella [D] - Last seen at Techdirt killing off his horrendous "Right to Be Forgotten" bill… but not in an honorable way. Rather than remove it from consideration, he simply revoked his sponsorship, leaving the orphaned bill to wander the Senate halls unattended.
Martin J. Golden [R] - A retired NYPD officer who has been instrumental in adding even more New Yorkers to the state's sex offender registry, as well as expanding the state's DNA databank to include people convicted of nothing more than a misdemeanor.
John J. Bonacic [R] - Former assistant district attorney and one of those guys who thinks something must be done about "anti-law enforcement rhetoric." Apparently, this bill is part of the solution -- a bill that could conceivably be twisted to turn "resisting arrest" into a felony-level hate crime. (Because what is "resisting arrest" if not "targeting" of law enforcement for abuse/violence/etc.?)
Here's the pertinent wording of the bill, which adds cops, firefighters, and EMTs to a long list of groups who have historically been victims of discrimination.
section 1, states that a person has committed a hate crime, when he or she commits a specified offense and either intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is committed or intended to be committed to, or in part because of a belief or perception regarding race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability, sexual orientation of a person, or because of actual or perceived employment as a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency medical services personnel.
Guess who doesn't fit into that list: the shorter list of occupations that have long been revered, respected, and given considerable amount of leeway to perform their duties. Unlike those who have been singled out for abuse because of their age, disability, ancestry, race, color, national origin, or sexual orientation, the new protected class is entirely composed of voluntary "traits."
Adding to the ridiculousness is the bill's name -- a self-righteous, heart-tugging melange of authority-worshipping words: Community Heroes Protection Act.
Very few bills of this sort have become law. Many have attempted to give more protection to well-protected powerful classes, but very few have garnered enough support to make it past the introduction stage. This one has moved forward, which is a problem because bills like this that have passed have immediately been abused by law enforcement.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blue lives matter, firemen, hate crime, new york, police
Reader Comments
The First Word
“There aren't that many deaths, few enough that you can look at them all. Even sampling a few shows that the numbers are very broad.
The Officer Down Memorial Page is a good place to start. https://www.odmp.org/
Until about a year ago, they freely mixed in police animal deaths, which bumped up the count but led to a few embarrassments when people quoted the numbers. They still have a very inclusive definition of "line of duty" deaths that include heart attacks while "on call" and single car accidents while off-duty in a government unmarked car.
As quick sample, they feature the most recent five deaths on the main page. Two of the five were single car non-emergency accidents. Both were severe, suggesting speed well in excess of the limit.
made the First Word by Ninja
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Beatings will continue until morale improves
So long as idiot politicians and police ignore the cause to focus only on the symptoms, the problem will continue to get worse.
If people don't respect the police maybe that has something to do with the police not respecting the public, and showing time and time again that if faced with a choice between a cop and a member of the public they will almost always back the cop, no matter what, such that a cop actually being held accountable for their actions is the rare exception rather than the rule.
Likewise, making no effort to hide the fact that they see the public as the enemy isn't going to earn them any friends, and it's hardly a surprise(or shouldn't be anyway) that eventually the public will return the favor, especially given the vast different in how the legal system treats the two sides, somethings that's guaranteed to cause problems and which this proposed law only makes worse.
If they actually wanted to 'protect' the police they'd be focusing on restoring the public trust and their image, but given that would require admitting that there's a serious problem within the police and taking steps to address those problems, steps which would require the unthinkable(holding police accountable for their actions) unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Beatings will continue until morale improves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Beatings will continue until morale improves
I could not agree with you more.
................
Now the police are the scary people and they don't give a rat's ass that we aren't happy with them. They are like politicians, special and above the rules.
This kind of stupid lawmaking only adds fuel to the fire that has already resulted in people specifically targeting and shooting cops.
We need higher standards for law enforcement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There aren't that many deaths, few enough that you can look at them all. Even sampling a few shows that the numbers are very broad.
The Officer Down Memorial Page is a good place to start. https://www.odmp.org/
Until about a year ago, they freely mixed in police animal deaths, which bumped up the count but led to a few embarrassments when people quoted the numbers. They still have a very inclusive definition of "line of duty" deaths that include heart attacks while "on call" and single car accidents while off-duty in a government unmarked car.
As quick sample, they feature the most recent five deaths on the main page. Two of the five were single car non-emergency accidents. Both were severe, suggesting speed well in excess of the limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are few enough deaths that those percentages can be significantly skewed by cherry-picking a time window.
You do have to check the information on that web site with other sources. There is an element of putting an 'on-duty' spin on questionable events, and not mentioning the at-fault aspects.
From my reading, the single change that would most reduce police fatalities is having law enforcement obey traffic laws when not in an active pursuit or responding to an emergency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: DB on May 18th, 2017 @ 3:38pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: DB on May 18th, 2017 @ 3:38pm
There has been an increase in mortality rates of law enforcement officers, firefighters, corrections officers and emergency medical services personnel, within the past decade.
When that's what's being used as justification for such a stupid law? To be blunt, yeah. If they're going to claim that the mortality rate is rising such that another protection needs to be granted to police, then mortality rates are what needs to be focused on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: DB on May 18th, 2017 @ 3:38pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open Season
Also, different than other protected classes, one does not necessarily grow up being taught to hate cops (well, maybe some are, recently), cops bring the hate of themselves upon themselves. If they actually served and actually protected, this law probably would not even have been thought of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#ACAB #FTP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, firemen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait, firemen?
You will notice there is nothing said about the behavior of EMTs, firemen, etc. The idea and the bill are simply wrong regardless of who it is meant to "protect".
There is something, in fact, to be said about hate crime enhancements period, as they seem to be more tools of abuse and not necessarily for adding penalties against those who are way more likely to re-offend due to bigoted hate issues. Not that our penal system is much geared to rehabilitation or any such thing, so the only option is to keep a convict longer or try to kill them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait, firemen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait, firemen?
* Trash collection engineers, or rather Solid Waste collection engineers
* Trash truck chauffeurs
* Sewage treatment plant operators
* Municipal water treatment specialists
After all, we don't want these people to engage in hate crimes. But why stop there?
* Security guards
* Ambulance drivers, Doctors, Nurses, EMTs
* Electric utility linemen, cable, ISP infrastructure maintenance
* Butchers, Bakers, Candlestick makers, etc.
But what about the overworked, underpaid, thankless jobs, like school teachers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait, firemen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait, firemen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait, firemen?
Is it a 'hate crime' under this bill if you start a fire by mistake in your kitchen and a fireman kills themselves trying to put it out?
If arson a hate crime if it kills a fireman, even though the arsonist just intended to kill the person sleeping in the building they set on fire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All in a Name
So is the short name CHutzPAh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All in a Name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Irony is such a bitch!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because technically this could be used to stop supervillains from picking on superheroes.
Just putting it out there in case nobody thought of it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've had people angry at me to
Oh wait cops cannot do anything wrong and if you hate them for their actions it is totally like killing black people because reasons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Garbage Men... Err.. Trash Collectors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But you guys hate ALL cops by the sounds of your posts. That's just as bad as hating ALL <insert ethnic or protected class> for the actions of a few of them. You are part of the problem.
Why can't you guys see that? Are you so powerfully biased that cognitive dissonance rules your thinking entirely?
How about protesting against public sector unions and their detrimental effects on policing the Police instead of hating the people who are out there trying to keep us ALL safer. Focus on the problem, in other words.
I know this will fall on deaf ears, but hey, it's still worth saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hope you guys all get a busy signal the first/next time you call 911.
Because nothing says 'Take me seriously, I speak from a position of moral superiority' like 'I hope you don't get help when next you find yourself in an emergency'.
Yeah, bad cops are out there. Yeah, the UNION system protects bad cops and makes them all suffer the bad reputation that causes.
The unions, the other cops, their departments, DA's, judges, US Attorney Generals...
But you guys hate ALL cops by the sounds of your posts.
Ah the 'You said something mean about police, you must hate all police' strawman, because that never gets old.
That's just as bad as hating ALL <insert ethnic or protected class> for the actions of a few of them.
Conflating race, gender or ethnicity with a profession that you choose to be in? Gotta love the (false equivalency logical fallacy) classics.
Why can't you guys see that? Are you so powerfully biased that cognitive dissonance rules your thinking entirely?
I'm just going to bask in the brilliance of this line, given who it's coming from and the rest of the comment.
How about protesting against public sector unions and their detrimental effects on policing the Police
Because while the police unions are a problem they're only a part of the problem.
...instead of hating the people who are out there trying to keep us ALL safer.
You know, when they're not suing, arguing that 'de-escalation' procedures are a violation of their 'rights', or ruining lives with their magic ability to spot drugs that even blood tests can't find.
I know this will fall on deaf ears, but hey, it's still worth saying.
If it 'falls on deaf ears' it's not because people are 'so powerfully biased' against what you're saying it's because you're arguing against strawman positions and ignoring very real and serious problems that encompass more than 'unions bad'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Until the Good cops start working to cull their ranks of Bad cops...
there are no good cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hope you guys all get a busy signal the first/next time you call 911.
Then my problem would be with the telco, as opposed to the police, wouldn't it?
But you guys hate ALL cops by the sounds of your posts.
Until the massive amount of good apples does something to the bad apples, then yeah, they're all bad apples.
Are you so powerfully biased that cognitive dissonance rules your thinking entirely?
I dunno. You mean like blaming the police for a busy signal to a 911 call center? I didn't know they were so involved in guaranteeing uptime on infrastructure. That kind of cognitive dissonance?
How about protesting against public sector unions and their detrimental effects on policing the Police instead of hating the people who are out there trying to keep us ALL safer.
Yeah, funny in when I see anything about breaking up unions, it's typically focused on teachers or labor. Not police. I find it hard to believe that the current "law & order" administration would back something like that.
Trump supporters? Tell me, what do you think about police unions?
I know this will fall on deaf ears, but hey, it's still worth saying
Don't flatter yourself. It really wasn't worth much at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So yeah, I'm focusing on the problem. We have an untrained quasi-military alpha-male shoot-first force of armed thugs in our midst and a bunch of stupid apologists making up excuses for their actions. Why don't YOU focus on the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Supposedly?
You must have missed the assassination of cops by BLM terrorists and their sympathizers marching through the streets calling for the death of all cops:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqQXmnMr_w8
I find it funny that these people who hate cops only hate them until they need their immediate assistance...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Because nothing says 'Take me seriously, I speak from a position of moral superiority' like 'I hope you don't get help when next you find yourself in an emergency'."
No, you are correct, even blatant hypocrites like you deserve protection. Blindly hating the police while still relying on them to protect you is stupid, but that's their job and it's within your rights to do so.
"The unions, the other cops, their departments, DA's, judges, US Attorney Generals..."
The ROOT of the problem is the fact that they are blindly supported/exonerated by the union and can't be held accountable for their misdeeds. Sure, there are other factors, but the union's stonewalling to protect the guilty is where it starts. Unions used to be necessary to protect the rank and file from safety and employment abuses by the company. Now they exist to push political agendas and protect the bottom 5% of their memberships. (made up number because this is the internet and I can do that here)
"Ah the 'You said something mean about police, you must hate all police' strawman, because that never gets old."
Is it a strawman? Read over all the posts - nowhere do they call out "bad cops" - even your post says "such that a cop actually being held accountable for their actions is the rare exception rather than the rule." That's bullshit. MOST Cops are held accountable for their actions - it's the exceptions to that which make news and gets people like you to post hateful comments about them. Since when is condemning a whole group for the actions of a few ok? Only when you decide to?
The part I don't understand is why it's ok for you to hate cops, but not ok for them to hate you back. You treat them all equally as potential or actual criminals and focus on the worst of them, while bemoaning their behavior in return. Yeah, being a cop is a job that they choose (your definition)to do, but they are just people and when you broadly paint them as all being corrupt, that's going to get the response you'd expect.
Case in point:
"You know, when *they're* not suing, arguing that 'de-escalation' procedures are a violation of *their* 'rights', or ruining lives with *their* magic ability to spot drugs that even blood tests can't find."
Yeah, because every cop does this. All of them. Because you'd be more specific if that wasn't the case, right?
Start with fixing the root of the problem - cops who DESERVE to be fired/prosecuted. Remove the barriers to them being held accountable - starting with the union and then address the REST of the problems going up the chain - but without the knee-jerk protectionism of the union I don't think that will be as hard to accomplish. Crappy employees get fired in the real world outside the public sector unions.
"I'm just going to bask in the brilliance of this line, given who it's coming from and the rest of the comment."
Thanks - I appreciate your compliment. I AM an Anonymous Coward, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, you are correct, even blatant hypocrites like you deserve protection.
And nothing says that more than Hope you guys all get a busy signal the first/next time you call 911. You were saying something about "blatant hypocrite?"
The part I don't understand is why it's ok for you to hate cops, but not ok for them to hate you back.
They can hate all they want. Once it affects how they do their job which we collectively pay for, then it's not OK.
Tough shit, if they don't like it. They can certainly take their "skills" somewhere else for all I care. Whiny employees just aren't worth my time.
Start with fixing the root of the problem - cops who DESERVE to be fired/prosecuted.
Great we'll take it up with the police...oh wait...haven't really thought this through, have you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First, I disagree that "MOST" cops are held accountable. Prove it. Wait, you can't. So don't say it.
Second, "the exceptions" are cops getting away with murder. Literal murder. Killing people. For no better reason than "I was scared". Over and over. Story after story. Yeah, people (like me) get tired of cops never even standing trial, much less being convicted for killing someone in cold blood. I'm not talking about armed suspects. I'm talking about kids, and men pulled over in their cars, and a hundred other situations where NO ONE SHOULD HAVE DIED. So yeah, those "exceptions" are pretty exceptional. And they are why I am extremely concerned about the thug police force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accountability ?
For you Citizens out there, initiate a well founded Internal Affairs complaint against a LEO and see just how far that goes. They will rubber stamp "Unsubstantiated" on the findings and you will be on your way.
A Federal lawsuit is the only way that you will get any justice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 911 ( " A joke in your town ? )
They are code enforcers and revenue collectors that are NOT employed to come to your rescue.
The horror stories of calling 911 are legend, just Google it, and think twice about bringing down the local armed militia. You don't have to go that far, just check around your neighborhood for some local optics.
Check out GILEE on Google and see what your up against.
As for the unions, the are the well spring for all the
rouge activities of the lawlessness of Law Enforcement.
You can eat your way up thru the food chain after that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 911 ( " A joke in your town ? )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which part of "No, you are correct" didn't register with you? Ah, you were just ignoring what you didn't want to acknowledge, I understand now. Cognitive dissonance ftw. That statement was sarcastic, but I admitted it was inappropriate and agreed with being called on it.
"They can hate all they want. Once it affects how they do their job which we collectively pay for, then it's not OK.
Tough shit, if they don't like it. They can certainly take their "skills" somewhere else for all I care. Whiny employees just aren't worth my time."
Ah, but there's the problem! They don't HAVE to "take their "skills" elsewhere, because they almost can't be fired because of the UNION. You call them employees - but what is the definition of an employee you can't fire? I know "you guys" normally have a slobbering love affair with unions, but you have to be able to see that they are the root of the problem here.
"Great we'll take it up with the police...oh wait...haven't really thought this through, have you?"
No, you are the one who seems to have trouble seeing the obvious. Public sector unions have no incentive to get rid of problem employees. If you want to change the dynamics, then address the mechanism which causes the problems.
I'm NOT saying that there aren't corrupt cops. I'm not saying that they aren't covered by multiple layers of protection. I'm saying that their first and primary layer of protection is the union and it's almost impossible to fire people in unions, and unless you can fire the bad cops, they WILL NOT GO AWAY.
Hate and complain all you want, but unless you address the fundamental issues, you aren't going to get anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That statement was sarcastic, but I admitted it was inappropriate and agreed with being called on it.
Actually it points out the primary problem with people like you - preying on the fear of others. I know you're scared. Just don't think the rest of us are as spineless as you.
They don't HAVE to "take their "skills" elsewhere, because they almost can't be fired because of the UNION.
And slobbering apologists saying things like "hope you don't need 911..."
I'm NOT saying that there aren't corrupt cops. I'm not saying that they aren't covered by multiple layers of protection.
You really haven't been saying much of anything to be honest.
I'm saying that their first and primary layer of protection is the union and it's almost impossible to fire people in unions, and unless you can fire the bad cops, they WILL NOT GO AWAY.
When they're backed by their "brothers in blue" and have full department management support, pointing to the union is an easy out, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In 2011 (most recent year I could find data for) there were 698,460 total police officers in the US. If you are postulating that all of them are thugs, and all of them were not held accountable for their actions, I would say it's your job to point out how many times they "got away" without being held accountable.
No question that there are bad cops, but you seriously think they ALL are? Based on what? Where are YOUR 698,460 examples?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh? Scared of... what? You've weaponized stupidity, but it's a case of exasperation and amusement at that, not fear of any kind. What possibly led to you saying such a non sequitur in this thread?
"When they're backed by their "brothers in blue" and have full department management support, pointing to the union is an easy out, isn't it?"
Ahem. All those "Brothers in Blue" are also union members. Up to a certain level, so are their bosses. Have you ever worked in or with a union? Do you know how they work in real life at all? They are more likely to fire a whistleblower than they are a corrupt douchebag. By FAR more likely. Just look at how the Veteran's Administration or IRS is run - same thing, less airplay.
Why aren't you guys interested in reforming the actions of the union that protects bad cops? You seem to want to blame all the cops IN the union, and not the union itself for it's actions for some reason. The union blindly defends and covers up the misdeeds of it's worst members, but that ok with you? You'd rather blame the all the cops themselves, whether or not they are directly involved in any way.
Here's a challenge - I freely admit there are bad cops out there. Can you admit and state that there are good ones? If so, there's a basis for discussion. If not, well, there's no reason to continue trying to discuss this.
Think about what you call other people who universally categorize and disparage other races/classes/groups of people. That's you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh? Scared of... what? You've weaponized stupidity, but it's a case of exasperation and amusement at that, not fear of any kind. What possibly led to you saying such a non sequitur in this thread?
This comment: Hope you guys all get a busy signal the first/next time you call 911.
Other than fear, what's that supposed to make me think? Weaponized stupidity. Yeah, good one.
You seem to want to blame all the cops IN the union, and not the union itself for it's actions for some reason.
So then we can say that the union as a collective is the problem, according to you. OK. Let's try that for a minute...
Can you admit and state that there are good ones?
Well given that you want to blame the collective so vehemently, why shouldn't I?
Think about what you call other people who universally categorize and disparage other races/classes/groups of people. That's you.
You started saying it's the union's fault. It's either the union's fault, meaning all members' faults, or it isn't.
Can you make up your mind, or have whatever cop you're arguing on behalf of make it up for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Cops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other than fear, what's that supposed to make me think? Weaponized stupidity. Yeah, good one."
Let me add my responses which you conveniently omitted:
"No, you are correct, even blatant hypocrites like you deserve protection. Blindly hating the police while still relying on them to protect you is stupid, but that's their job and it's within your rights to do so."
"That statement was sarcastic, but I admitted it was inappropriate and agreed with being called on it."
Yes, that sounds like I'm terrified, I admit. Not. (that's sarcasm again, by the way)
"Can you admit and state that there are good ones?
Well given that you want to blame the collective so vehemently, why shouldn't I?"
So you are seriously saying that all police are bad because they aren't held accountable, but one of the main reasons they aren't held accountable doesn't have anything to do with it? I'm saying there are bad cops who shouldn't be protected by the union. Good cops don't NEED to be protected by the union. You can't see the difference?
"You started saying it's the union's fault. It's either the union's fault, meaning all members' faults, or it isn't."
So, according to you, the actions of a small sub-group translate to the whole, despite the fact that union membership isn't optional and there aren't any realistic internal mechanisms to change the union's policies on protecting bad cops. You realize that that type of thinking is seriously fucked up, right?
If you applied that logic to ISIS and Islam, you'd be insulting billions of peaceful people for the actions of an insane minority. Not cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, according to you, the actions of a small sub-group translate to the whole, despite the fact that union membership isn't optional and there aren't any realistic internal mechanisms to change the union's policies on protecting bad cops. You realize that that type of thinking is seriously fucked up, right?
Well, I'd like to point out that it was YOU that brought up the union. Remember? It's the union's fault, not the officers? Since you want to blame the union, I'd like to ask who the fucking fuck do you think makes up the union?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Community Heroes Protection Act"?
Maybe "(unionized terrorism zappers)"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hate Crimes ?
No one is talking about the Third Rail of the name that dare not be mentioned. Who protect's senior citizens, veterans and I could down the list of those who need protection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]