"Legitimate Sacrificial Citizen"?

[palerider116]

Well, that's certainly not true. And, way to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Unions can be voluntary groups without any sort of illegitimate authority. The ability to form such groups is a necessary and inherent aspect of liberty.

Also, if unionization is "always" a danger to liberty, then by the same token government is always mutually exclusive with it (liberty). Does that conclusion satisfy you?

And even that's not strictly true: government could be voluntarist and non-monopolizing.

The context is police unions of New York. Your post does not address police unions, which is the subject of my unionization reference.

The narrow context of unionization is always danger to liberty is limited to NYS LEAs.

Very narrow and thread specific.

 

[SavageOne]

Nah, you're putting words in my mouth. By the way, doing so has been known to precipitate an indignant

overreaction, and we've already had one of those on this page...
.

My apologies. I was not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to ask some questions. I would hate to garner any primate hate.

We simply disagree here on a few points. While I would also like to see the level of armed Federal actors decreased, I just don't see it ever happening. The Federal government has no history of relinquishing any amount of power once it has aquired it. Since I don't see the number of armed Federal employees decreasing, I would at least like to see them trained to be less of an unintentional threat.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Unionization is always a danger to liberty. These agencies are monuments to an arcane way of doing things incorrectly and without accountability.

Yes they get protection from their departments from the Unions, BUT the prosecutors in NYS owe no allegiance to unions, and unions are not a affirmative defense for homicide.

 

[marshaul]

The context is police unions of New York. Your post does not address police unions, which is the subject of my unionization reference.

The narrow context of unionization is always danger to liberty is limited to NYS LEAs.

Very narrow and thread specific.

OK, but you didn't say that, or even imply it. Sure, *you* knew you were referring to the thread context exclusively, but you didn't actually indicate that.

Now, since we're clear on the context, I'll take it one step farther: public servant unionization is always inimical to liberty, most especially that of Law Enforcement. I'd be quite happy to ban law enforcement unions outright; they're an inherent conflict of interest incompatible with our representative system.

 

[OC for ME]

Any and every public sector union is a affront to liberty, a affront to the citizenry, and a virtually impenetrable bulwark used to obviate accountability.

 

[sharkey]

I would agree with you, but NYS police agencies do not have a good record with holding officers who shoot and kill innocent victims to light. They killed a man with a drill, shot a clerk that was just trying to get away from a criminal. AND shot NINE innocent bystanders in which one officer could be seen shooting his sidearm as he was running away, not even aiming. So far ZIP on any charges or grand juries.

Don't forget when they killed that undercover officer. Nevermind, not the same thing.

Sometime cops do request cops be charged for murder, but even when you kill you own you won't be prosecuted.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/24/nyregion/subway-chaos-officer-firing-at-officer.html

"This was 15 seconds of sheer terror for these two men who did what they were supposed to do," Mr. Bratton said. "We're not going to second-guess them."

"To shoot him three times in the back is out-and-out murder -- period," said Sgt. Kelvin Alexander, the president of the transit police unit of the Guardians. "And he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I don't think he knew it was a cop. He was just killing another black man, and that is indicative of a sickness right there."

A 47-year-old New Jersey commuter named Dennis Kearns said he saw a man, later identified as Officer Del Debbio. kneeling with his gun over another man, later identified as Officer Robinson, who lay face down, half in the train and half on the platform. He said the kneeling man fired his gun three times at point-blank range into the other man's back.

The incident I was actually thinking of.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/n...cer-geoffrey-j-breitkopf-no-charges.html?_r=0

[h=1]No Charges in Friendly-Fire Killing of Officer on Long Island[/h]
Officer Breitkopf, 40, a member of the bureau who was in civilian clothes, was just arriving with a rifle slung under his arm when Officer Gentile fired one shot at him.
James Carver, president of the Nassau County Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, said later that, moments before the shooting, someone yelled “Gun!”

I'm shocked by the number of time NY police kill each other. They don't seem to ever get charged so there is little hope they'll charge one for killing a non law enforcement officer.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I'm shocked by the number of time NY police kill each other. They don't seem to ever get charged so there is little hope they'll charge one for killing a non law enforcement officer.

In my state, I think that an equal # of state troopers murdered have been murdered by: a) non-cops and b) other cops


Not accidental deaths, but actual murders...

Given the much high amount of non-cops to cops ... this data would support that cops are much more likely to kill than non-cops? hmmm.

 

[WalkingWolf]

In my state, I think that an equal # of state troopers murdered have been murdered by: a) non-cops and b) other cops


Not accidental deaths, but actual murders...

Given the much high amount of non-cops to cops ... this data would support that cops are much more likely to kill than non-cops? hmmm.

Ya know back in the 70's and 80's there were actually attempts by the gov usually in the form of academic suggestions that police be disarmed. Their reasoning, Britain's police are unarmed. But wait, it turned out they are not, that only some of them were, and others were concealed carrying. And now present day they are openly carrying fully automatic rifles. I was staunchly against any attempts to disarm police, and still am today, as they are citizens like the rest of us. But if we are not allowed to be armed they should be in the same boat as us.

 

[eye95]

In my state, I think that an equal # of state troopers murdered have been murdered by: a) non-cops and b) other cops

Not accidental deaths, but actual murders...

Given the much high amount of non-cops to cops ... this data would support that cops are much more likely to kill than non-cops? hmmm.

Cite? Because, barring extremely low numbers, your claim is extremely hard to believe.

*does not expect to get a cite, but a lame excuse instead*


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[marshaul]

Ya know back in the 70's and 80's there were actually attempts by the gov usually in the form of academic suggestions that police be disarmed. Their reasoning, Britain's police are unarmed. But wait, it turned out they are not, that only some of them were, and others were concealed carrying. And now present day they are openly carrying fully automatic rifles. I was staunchly against any attempts to disarm police, and still am today, as they are citizens like the rest of us. But if we are not allowed to be armed they should be in the same boat as us.

Two points:

1. When the Metropolitan Police first stopped carrying guns, the UK was not yet a police state. Citizens could, and would, be armed as they pleased. In fact, officers would frequently borrow guns from convenient citizens when chasing a criminal, etc. The policy of disarmed police was implemented on the speculation that their being unarmed would decrease the rate at which criminals facing arrest decided to shoot cops. By all accounts, it succeeded in having precisely this effect. Fast forward to today, and the UK has all the self-fulfilling prophecies of an overlarge government, including an apparent "need" for MP5-toting cops.

2. Cops do and should retain an RKBA in their personal lives. However, right also mandates the freedom for employers to dictate the behavior of their employees. As the employer of police, we would be eminently within our rights to require that police be unarmed on the job.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I met a bobby a good 30 years ago, nice fellow who rode with me for a little more than a week. The first thing I did was take him to the range and qualify him. But as he explained to me the bobby was part of the community, not a separate gov official. They were encouraged to interact on a positive basis with the public, something that is severely lacking in our present police state. From what I hear things in the UK have changed, and police are no longer encouraged to be part of the citizenry.

 

[marshaul]

I met a bobby a good 30 years ago, nice fellow who rode with me for a little more than a week. The first thing I did was take him to the range and qualify him. But as he explained to me the bobby was part of the community, not a separate gov official. They were encouraged to interact on a positive basis with the public, something that is severely lacking in our present police state. From what I hear things in the UK have changed, and police are no longer encouraged to be part of the citizenry.

Yes, and yes.

I lived in London for a year (2004-2005), and numerous people described this shift to me.

Must have been fun schooling that bobby, btw. :lol:

 

[palerider116]

Excerpt:

2. Cops do and should retain an RKBA in their personal lives. However, right also mandates the freedom for employers to dictate the behavior of their employees. As the employer of police, we would be eminently within our rights to require that police be unarmed on the job.

The citizenry is the employer; the officer is a citizen; therefore the officer is to a degree self-employed.

A right is only surrendered by choice or made void by death. If your employer says no firearms on the premises, that is the right of the employer. It is the right of the employee to say no and either dispute it legally or find alternative employment. Now if the officer is a citizen, and the citizenry employs the officer (officer pays taxes also, making him or her a partner in this service), how shall his or her right to bear arms be infringed? Is he a second class citizen because of the occupation?

If the individual right to bear arms can be negated by being in public employment, then the officer will be solely at the mercy of the violent offender or good citizen who durst to sticketh his neck out. This obviously works well just for the average citizen who is targeted by the criminal. Now lets introduce the element of apprehension of said violent felon with a nightstick, some pepper spray, hot tea and crumpets!

I forgot Taser. Sorry.

Its wrong for anyone to be deprived of the right to defend himself from an assailant. Period.

How about we work at restoring the right to bear arms that have been yielded by previous generations? How about we fight government corruption at all levels? How about we deal with these politicians who MAKE these laws that infringe upon our rights?

The right to bear arms is not a police power. It is a natural right not ensconced by the powers vested in an office. We must take back a right that has been yielded by our forefathers and taken by the political thuggery.

A bad cop is the tip of the iceberg. The powers of the office allow bad people to do bad things. This holds true for all offices where power is vested but not monitored.

I encourage you to get involved with your local police department. Do a ride along, join the citizens police academy, or find other things to make inroads. Be the change you want in an organization that provides a public service.

 

[marshaul]

The citizenry is the employer; the officer is a citizen; therefore the officer is to a degree self-employed.

Only to the extent that he may vote on representatives who will vote on laws which dictate the conditions of his employment.

A right is only surrendered by choice or made void by death. If your employer says no firearms on the premises, that is the right of the employer. It is the right of the employee to say no and either dispute it legally or find alternative employment. Now if the officer is a citizen, and the citizenry employs the officer (officer pays taxes also, making him or her a partner in this service), how shall his or her right to bear arms be infringed? Is he a second class citizen because of the occupation?

Nice try. Is a soldier a "second class citizen" because he agrees not to exercise his right to, say, criticize the military while serving in it, or not be armed when they tell him he cannot? There are countless examples of public servants who voluntarily choose to not exercise a right as a condition of employment. Perhaps you imagine that free speech requires all government employees to be able to say anything they please at all while on the job, or else they're "second class citizens"? Because, after all, they basically employ themselves, right?

It's amusing watching you try to single out cops in this regard, but they're no different from any of these other cases.

The rest of your post is irrelevant, as it addresses the straw man/red herring you created. As I've already shown, right is not implicated when A: he voluntarily seeks employment, and B: he is free to keep and bear arms outside the scope of his employment.

I encourage you to get involved with your local police department. Do a ride along, join the citizens police academy, or find other things to make inroads. Be the change you want in an organization that provides a public service.

Hah! We have a comedian.

 

[eye95]

..I encourage you to get involved with your local police department. Do a ride along...

On another message board, a lot of cops kept asking me to do this so that I would understand, from their POV, why folks should not walk around OC and that, when they do, officers must stop them and to a check on them and their gun.

However, they refused to let me do so armed. I told that that I'd sign any waivers and follow all the orders of the officer with whom I rode. They insisted that I'd be a danger and that the officer would take responsibility for my safety. I was adamant. I was called a cop-hater by cop and non-cop alike for my stance. (I wear the fact that I have been called both a LEO-hater and a LEO-apologist as a badge of honor. It means that I must be neither, but a person who considers each individual cop and each individual situation uniquely, coming down on either side of the issue, depending on that consideration.)

So no ride-along has happened. And it won't--until some officer and some department has the stones to make it happen while I am lawfully carrying. Until then, the offer is just so much propaganda.

 

[Citizen]

There are unions and there are unions, marriage, labor, governments, academic...

One does have to wonder why police would want a union. A union just gives its members, collectively, more power. Yet, as the enforcement arm of government, police already have lots of power.

What on earth do they need more power for? (not a rhetorical question--a suggestion of motive)

 

[sudden valley gunner]

One does have to wonder why police would want a union. A union just gives its members, collectively, more power. Yet, as the enforcement arm of government, police already have lots of power.

What on earth do they need more power for? (not a rhetorical question--a suggestion of motive)

Unions are heralded by their members as a way for us citizens to fight the man, and the evil corporations........so a public service union created to fight us the people??????? Never understood that.

On second thought this does fall into progressive ideology in it's hidden war against a free people.....

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The citizenry is the employer; the officer is a citizen; therefore the officer is to a degree self-employed.

LOL....sophistry....this is the same logic of socialism, the company wouldn't exist without us so we must be the rightful owners and the profit must be distributed fairly to us and we should have a say on how the "owners" run the company.

Governments don't have rights, people have rights, this puts government employees all the way down to cops, in a situation of sacrificing rights while engaged in your official capacities. If the people of your state voted you need to wear pink tutus while on patrol.....you have all the rights to wear a tutu or stop working for government.

My state even recognizes in a legislative note that police rights of use of force are more limited than the general citizenry.

 

[palerider116]

The problem with that logic is profits are not rights.

The right to bear arms: right.

The right to equal slice of the pie: not a right.

I recommend Locke, Hobbes, and Montesquieu as excellent sources to understand what is a right and what is not a right.

 

[Citizen]

Unions are heralded by their members as a way for us citizens to fight the man, and the evil corporations........so a public service union created to fight us the people??????? Never understood that.

On second thought this does fall into progressive ideology in it's hidden war against a free people.....

I woulda said its just power-hungry people grabbing for more and protecting what they got.

If you think about it, what is government? Just a deluxe union.