Seattle Cops Crowdsourcing Legal Battle Against DOJ-Imposed Excessive Force Remedies

from the cops-ask-public-to-front-money-in-return-for-gunshot-wounds-later dept

Reaping what you sow doesn't seem to be an operative metaphor in the law enforcement world. Years of excessive force and biased policing by the Seattle PD resulted in a Dept. of Justice investigation. The final outcome was a series of reforms being ordered to address these issues [pdf]. These reforms -- including a new use of force policy -- went into effect at the beginning of 2014. And probably not a minute too late. 2013 saw the Seattle police officers performing 20% of the city's homicides (6 out of 29 total).

But some officers on the force seem to prefer excessive force and discriminatory policing. The Oregonian reports that a group of Seattle police officers has set up a crowdfunding campaign to finance its legal battle against these reforms, which they say "violate" their "rights." (via Techdirt reader hoare)
A Seattle police officer suing to block new use-of-force policies has set up an Internet fundraising page to help pay for the legal fight, calling the federally mandated reforms "the greatest threat to the city's public safety in our time."

Robert Mahoney, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit brought by 113 officers, created the crowdfunding page Saturday on the website GoFundMe.
The manifesto delivered there is impressive in its assertion of nonexistent rights and misrepresentation of the dangers Seattle cops face.
We would prefer to just be doing our jobs rather than having to also wage a legal battle for our rights. However, as well as being public servants, we are also fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors. We have the right and the duty to go home at the end of each watch. Requiring us to take unnecessary risks that will inevitably prevent this is not only unreasonable, it is immoral.
No one has the "right" to make it through work safely. There are plenty of safeguards in place in hopes of assuring this happens, but it's a stretch to say that anyone has the "right" (guaranteed by what?) to not die while on the clock. To be sure, wrongful death suits can arise out of workplace-related deaths, but this is a civil remedy that deals mainly with employer negligence, not the normal, known hazards of the work environment. If you don't want to face these known risks, then your best bet is to find alernate employment.

The crowdfunding page tries to turn a statement by the Supreme Court dealing with self-defense into a "right" to live through a shift.
The Supreme Court has long acknowledged that self-defense is a natural individual right possessed by every citizen, regardless of profession, i.e. "the rules which determine what is self-defense are of universal application, and are not affected by the character [of a person's] employment."
Even if self-defense is a right, staying alive until the end of the shift is not. The government has never portrayed police work -- or any other dangerous work -- as subject to a right to remain alive. What these officers are doing here is turning self-defense into something much more proactive than it really is. It's a defensive method ties to justified force, not a blank check for excessive/deadly force. These cops seem to believe in preemptive self-defense, which helps explain why the Seattle PD was responsible for 20% of homicides last year.

This fact points to uglier truth: do these Seattle cops believe only the police have a "right" to make it home safely? Is that only guaranteed for some people? Because six people didn't "make it home safely" in 2013 as a direct result of police force. And yet, all we're seeing here is an argument that because police work is inherently dangerous, there should be nothing standing between a police officer and a safe return home -- even if it means "violating" other people's "right" to self-defense/make it home alive. This statement pushes for everyone to make the assumption that at all times, it is civilians who are the aggressors. Fighting back -- even in self-defense -- isn't really an option for civilians. That behavior tends to make members of the public more bruised/bleeding/dead.

Further "justification" for the removal of DOJ-ordered remedies takes the form of phrases delivered without citing any evidence whatsoever.
Being a cop has never been more complicated, unpredictable, and dangerous. We work in a city, like many American cities, faced with increasing criminal violence…
Being a cop is actually safer than it's been in over 50 years. Police have access to a greater variety of offensive and defensive options than they've ever had. The assertion that Seattle is "facing increasing criminal violence" is just plain wrong. Crime rates nationally have been in a steady decline since the late 1980s. Seattle is no exception. Its crime rate is now half of what it was in 1985.

The statement leans heavily on depicting self-defense as a Constitutionally-guaranteed right to deploy whatever amount of force the officer deems necessary when faced with a potentially dangerous situation. The Constitution does not guarantee an "any means necessary" approach to threats -- not for police officers and not for members of the public.

Officers will find themselves in more dangerous situations than most members of the public, but they also have Kevlar vests, openly-carried weapons, Tasers, nightsticks, etc. on hand at all times. What these officers want to do is roll things back to the days when they could go hard on certain ethnicities and dole out excessive force as they saw fit. And now they want the public to help fund a fight for worse policing -- the same public that's on the hook for every settlement handed out to excessive force victims, as well as paying for any legal action the city of Seattle takes in response. That's beyond tone-deaf. That's audaciousness bordering on sociopathy.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 9:27am

    I suppose they're taking a leaf out of the crowdfunding efforts to protect Darren Wilson. I would not be surprised if the same people who fund this also blather on and on about 'small gubberment'. LAW ENFORCEMENT IS GOVERNMENT

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 9:33am

    Cops claiming rights that trump civilian rights now? WTF.IS.THIS.SHIT?

    Everything is upside down.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      art guerrilla (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:25am

      Re:

      thank you, what i was going to say...

      civil servant tail wagging the citizen dog...

      entitled donut eaters strike again: as if WE EXIST to provide convenient punching bags when they are feeling stressed...
      damn those punching bags for not knowing their place ! !!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael, 12 Sep 2014 @ 9:35am

    From the report:

    When SPD officers use force, they do so in an unconstitutional manner nearly
    20% of the time. This finding (as well as the factual findings identified below) is
    not based on citizen reports or complaints. Rather, it is based on a review of a
    randomized, stratified, and statistically valid sample of SPD’s own internal use of
    force reports completed by officers and supervisors


    They violate the CONSTITUTION 20% of the time when they are using force? Why are they not all in jail?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Chris-Mouse (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 11:05am

      Re:

      Probably because it's not a criminal offence for a government official to knowingly violate the constitution. at worst, the punishment is a slap on the wrist followed by a fine that the taxpayers have to pay.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 12:32pm

        Re: Re:

        Whereas an appropriate punishment would be immediate dismissal and a lifetime ban on any public employment. Anything less means the constitution isn't serious and can be ignored at will...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 1:37pm

      Re:

      Wrong, they violate it in their own words 20% of the time. The other 80% of the time they manage to not implicate themselves whether that means that there was no violation or not, hard to say due to the lack of documentation and the stonewalling to prevent real independent review. The "Thin blue line" is a clear demarcation that prevents the law from being applied equally. When you have an imbalance in law, you have an imbalance in society and the end is inevitable.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    aldestrawk (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 9:36am

    homicide metric

    If the police were performing their job perfectly they would be performing 100% of the homicides in a jurisdiction. Alternatively, if the police existed as an armed, corrupt, and evil entity, the only one in a jurisdiction, they would also be performing 100% of the homicides. I'm pointing out that a ratio of homicides is not a good metric for judging a police force. What's important is whether such a powerful and committed (as in one that can't be taken back, there is a better word here but I can't think of it at the moment) use of force is justified. That justification shouldn't come from just internal reviews.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:27am

      Re: homicide metric

      I argue that if they were performing their job perfectly, they would always be able to take the suspect in alive and would therefore have no homicides at all.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 12:30pm

        Re: Re: homicide metric

        I argue that if they were performing their job perfectly, they would always be able to take the suspect in alive and would therefore have no homicides at all.

        I'm having trouble envisioning a society with both strong personal liberties and also a zero homicide rate.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 12:51pm

          Re: Re: Re: homicide metric

          Not zero but certainly very low.

          People generally don't want to kill their neighbors, and in a working society, there would be plenty of alternatives to murder when it comes to resolving disputes.

          We'd still have problems with people wanting to posse up and go to the next town and shoot those WEST SIDE southern Pentecostals. Heretics.

          But if we gave them alternatives to that (e.g. sports, video games, plenty of sex and food) they might not be so interested.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            nasch (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 1:47pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: homicide metric

            People generally don't want to kill their neighbors, and in a working society, there would be plenty of alternatives to murder when it comes to resolving disputes.

            It may sound strange but I think if everyone had a good job* there would be very little violence. You would still have the occasional jealous spouse or psycho, but if everyone had work and we took a different approach to drugs, we could almost get rid of police.

            * meaning paying enough money to make ends meet, and offering at least a moderate level of satisfaction

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Oblate (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 2:08pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: homicide metric

            | But if we gave them alternatives to that (e.g. sports, video games, plenty of sex and food)

            Just give them plenty of food and video games, and they won't want or be able to get off the couch and cause trouble.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 1:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: homicide metric

          Well, we did say, perfect, which in regards to human behavior can never exist.

          And, in any case, I meant that the department would have a zero homicide rate. Even an imaginary perfect police department would largely be reactionary, unless you consider pre-crime to be part of perfection.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dave Cortright (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 9:37am

    Isn't that in the job description?

    It seems pretty strange (arrogant) to me that someone would choose a profession that any reasonable person knows comes with inherent danger, and then try to say that the job needs to be changed to eliminate that danger.

    If you're a cook and can't stand the heat, you get out of the kitchen. And if you're a *trained* cop and can't stand dealing with inherently dangerous citizens (you know, because that's your job: to "serve and protect" the public who is not trained to do so), then get out of the uniform.

    Every cop who thinks they need to use excessive force should be required to read/watch this account of Australian cops subduing a mentally ill man in a mall with a gun. It can be done. And if you choose not to do it, that's fine. We can find someone else who will. Maybe we need to get some Aussie cops over here on a work visa.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/tense-footage-of-aussie-cops-restraint-2014-8

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 12:59pm

      I am still stunned by the GSG 9 statistic.

      Grenzschutzgruppe 9 der Bundespolizei is an elite German counter-terrorism unit.

      They've been active since 1973.

      They've served for over 1500 missions.

      About 250 operators currently.

      In their history of duty, they've discharged their weapons five times.

      Five.

      I want that kind of professionalism for our counter-terrorism squads, from SWAT to DEVGRU.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ed (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 9:40am

    Hopefully, the dearth of contributions to this ludicrous campaign will signal a hearty FU to the Seattle PD members who think they deserve more rights than anyone else.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2014 @ 9:03pm

      Re:

      and pray they don't start "confiscating drug money" from various citizens off to make bank deposits or buying something to make up for the lack of cash donations. because anyone that uses cash instead of a credit card must be a druggie or a terrorist.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael, 12 Sep 2014 @ 9:49am

    Even more horrifying is the actual changes they are looking for include (paraphrased):

    1) Clarify that all use of force must be reported
    2) Create a use of force policy specific for each weapon available to officers
    3) Develop protocols for interacting with people that appear crazy
    4) Make sure supervisors call for medical assistance and review all use of force incidents
    5) Use teams to review and investigate all serious uses of force
    6) Follow their own policy of submitting use of force reports before going off-duty
    7) Supervisors should take action when use of force policies are violated
    8) Conduct reviews of officers with high use of force incidents
    9) Track the outcome of cases after arrest
    10) Early intervention reviews should be handled by higher level officers
    11) Early intervention should be expanded to include supervisors that are using excessive force
    12) Put people into the early intervention program at a lower threshold than the current levels


    How could ANY of this put officers in more danger?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 12:49pm

      Re:

      Taken together these requirements obviously put officers at greater danger.

      Greater danger of actually having to do their jobs.
      Greater danger of having to behave responsibly in a responsible job.
      Greater danger of getting into trouble if they indulge their own racist bigotry by using excessive violent force on visible members of and race disliked by the officer.
      Greater danger of losing jobs that they are unfit to hold.

      Not that I think all Seattle cops are scumbags, but those who are would definitely be place in greater danger, just not the danger they want you to believe...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2014 @ 9:04pm

      Re:

      it prevents them from shooting people for thrill kills. it damages their egos.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Matthew A. Sawtell, 12 Sep 2014 @ 9:52am

    Say what you will about the situation...

    Say what you will about the situation, and there is plenty to say, it is interesting to see what groups can and will attempt the crowdfunding method to further their cause. It will even more interesting to see if there will be any attempts to "out" any anonymous donors said cause, and the reactions to that afterwards.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:45am

      Re: This the guy?

      I see no reason for oversight here. He's only a "use-of-force" expert so jacked on testosterone that he can't leave a female subordinate alone, who then lies about it, and then tries to appeal on a technicality.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    lucidrenegade (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 9:57am

    Funny, I don't see Law Enforcement Officer anywhere...
    -------------------------------------
    Top 10 Most Dangerous Jobs according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

    1. Logging workers
    2. Fishers and related fishing workers
    3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
    4. Roofers
    5. Structural iron and steel workers
    6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
    7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
    8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
    9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
    10. Construction laborers

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:03am

    That's like a firefighter refusing to enter a burning building to save people. because firefighters "have the right and the duty to go home at the end of each watch".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:30am

      Re:

      I think it's more like a firefighter calling in a chemical retardant dive bomber to hit a building when he can see that something on the stove is on fire.

      Excessive force, not avoidance.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 12:33pm

        Re: Re:

        I think it's more like a firefighter calling in a chemical retardant dive bomber to hit a building when he can see that something on the stove is on fire.

        The Mythbusters once put out a kitchen fire with a helicopter. It was pretty awesome.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 1:23pm

      Re:

      Or like volunteer soldiers pleading "conscientious objection" only when they are about to deploy...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:05am

    Re: Michael, Sep 12th, 2014 @ 9:49am

    The changes evidently endanger officers ability to do whatever they want without repercussion, personal responsibility or impact on their ability to earn a pay cheque. Besides, all that reporting is really really inconvenient.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:06am

    "We have the right and the duty to go home at the end of each watch."

    Please cite your reference for this statement officer. If this is an unalienable right bestowed upon you and your officers via the city or state, you should have no problem producing said reference to the satisfaction of the public. If not, your cause is questionable in both its legality and ethical position with its contempt toward the public you allegedly serve. Though you have the right to state such comments, the public cannot detain or arrest you for that. It would benefit you and your cause to learn from this concept of reciprocity between law enforcement and the public.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:32am

      Re:

      I think people are misinterpreting his quote.

      Based on what the changes are, I don't think this actually has to do with the job being dangerous -- this has to do with the fact that with the changes, at the end of an officer's shift, instead of going home they're going to have an additional two hours of paperwork to fill out.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:56am

        Re: Re:

        Only if they have had to use force during their shift, so they could avoid that paperwork most of the time by doing their job in a civilized fashion.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    anonymous Dutch coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:13am

    propaganda

    Kalyuzhnyy yelled, “I’m going to kill you,” and fired a gunshot at the officers, according to police.

    This is one of the homicides. Job well done, I think. Yes, I am aware of how the US police works, although I am Dutch, but a bit less propaganda would be nice Tim.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 11:11am

      Re: propaganda

      "according to police"

      Police lie frequently.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 7:37pm

      Re: propaganda

      Do you always take murders at their word or just when they are in a position of authority?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 9:58pm

        Re: Re: propaganda

        Very possibly. Human beings as part of our lexicon of organization-related instincts tend to hold persons of authority in higher esteem, and tend to cut them a lot more latitude on the presumption that they know better than we do.

        Critical thought, especially regarding laws and customs, has to be trained, and it's rather problematic that nations allegedly governed by the people do not include this as necessary in the education of their children, possibly because those in power enjoy staying in power.

        So undue respect of persons in authority is actually very commonplace, and is from whence appeals to authority get their power and from whence expressions like "The law's the law" come. It's also why incumbent representatives have an intrinsic advantage in elections, ergo George W. Bush's second term.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:39am

    Rules of Engagement

    If the police want to play military and have all the military toys, they should also be required (under VERY severe penalties) to adhere to the same Rules of Engagement. Currently, the police are allowed to shoot at nearly any provocation where they feel "threatened".

    Our military sometimes has more restraint against terrorists than our police has against its own citizens.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:40am

    I agree that this lawsuit is ludicrous and the statement is tone-deaf, but focusing in on the 20% homicide figure seems lazy. The sample size is pretty small (29), and we don't know how many of those six homicides were controversial or justifiable. Most importantly, we don't know from this article if any of those six homicides would have been affected by the revised use of force rules.

    I just think repeating "Seattle Police cause 20% of homicides" detracts from an otherwise great article.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Applesauce, 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:41am

    Low intelligence

    Don't forget: In most US police departments, candidates are given an IQ test. If they score above 120, they are disqualified. This policy has been repeatedly upheld by the Federal Appeals Court.

    The consequence of this policy should be obvious.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:50am

    Thats funny

    "We would prefer to just be doing our jobs rather than having to also wage a legal battle for our rights."

    I am not in law enforcement and would like to say this.

    Fuck'em I say! Corrupt bastards not even realizing how corrupt they are.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 12:35pm

      Re: Thats funny

      "We would prefer to just be doing our jobs rather than having to also wage a legal battle for our rights."

      That's how the rest of us feel too...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:52am

    the rules which determine what is self-defense are of universal application, and are not affected by the character [of a person's] employment."



    But let a citizen who feels threatened by the Police try to defend themselves, They'll be dead , plain and simple..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    toyotabedzrock (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 11:41am

    Maybe the citizens should use their arguments to fire or gun down these cops to prevent their own lives being taken.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    connermac725 (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 11:41am

    maybe we all should set one up

    you know to help sue officers who use excessive force or who decide to unload their guns into unarmed people

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 1:42pm

      Re: maybe we all should set one up

      Go ahead and see how long it takes police to illegally determine who you are and where you live. Then the real fun begins as they literally ruin your life, just out of spite.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 12:06pm

    Since it's popular is Missouri...

    At least they're not crowdfunding a free-to-murder-black-people policy.

    Oh wait...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    nasch (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 12:36pm

    Crowdfunding

    I wonder what would happen if that platform had a way to donate money to cancel out contributions. So you give $10 and $10 gets taken away from the project, and $20 goes to a charity of your choice.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 1:11pm

    Self defense for police?

    1. its a JOB, YOUR JOB, you PICKED IT..You get paid for it, with the best insurance and Union in the nation.

    2. What about Citizen SELF DEFENSE?? from YOU? This DOG is eating me, and I cant shoot it, because you will shoot me, for having a GUN..

    3. You want less Paranoia? go work at the MAll, for LESS MONEY..less insurance..

    Its bad enough when we have to listen to TV, and paranoia is all over the news..(hate national coverage) but to be paranoid from someone thats SUPPOSED to help me?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 2:04pm

    So they don't want to follow the laws, just enforce the laws.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 2:13pm

    They should give bonuses for contributing.

    $25 - Free pass on a parking ticket.
    $100 - Get out of Jail free.
    $1000 - SWAT call on a neighbor.

    Probably get far more people contributing to their cause.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Zonker, 12 Sep 2014 @ 2:22pm

    We have the right and the duty to go home at the end of each watch. Requiring us to take unnecessary risks that will inevitably prevent this is not only unreasonable, it is immoral.
    Don't expect this guy to be one of those good officers who selflessly charged into the Twin Towers to rescue as many people as they could before they collapsed.
    Don't expect him to face any threat to life and safety until they've already been neutralized either, though he'll likely insist on taking credit for it.
    Don't expect him to confront anyone actually armed and ready to defend himself with lethal force, the coward will exercise his "right and duty" to run and hide in the safety of his own home.
    Expect him to only ever have the guts to use force on people who are of little or no threat to him so that he can still go home at the end of his shift rather than face any real threat.

    I'd gladly contribute to a campaign to remove him from the police force. That way he can exercise his right and duty to stay home as long as he likes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2014 @ 2:56pm

    Only police have rights.

    So where is our right to defend ourselves in cop related "incidents". Oh yes it is nonexistent, because we can videotape the whole thing, have 10 witnesses, be innocent of the original crime, and have broken bones while the cops wouldn't have a scratch, and still time and time again it is proven to simply not be enough in a court of law.
    Self-defense rights are not for civilians I guess.
    The only way to see justice from violence by cop is if you are a cop yourself i guess.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2014 @ 9:10pm

      Re: Only police have rights.

      Then prepare to die some day by a cop then. as long as people accept this then it will only get worse.

      reform or revolution. the latter looks more likely the more time goes on

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TestPilotDummy, 12 Sep 2014 @ 5:32pm

    Simplify it.

    I don't care what cops do, as long as they obey and protect
    the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Whomever cross this line, there must be immediate personal consequence.

    The discussion for "Today's America" needs to be about a Standard Operating Procedure, on how and where to APPLY THE SCREWS, and TEETH to ALL OF those who DARE to break their oath.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Coyne Tibbets (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 10:53pm

    Clarification, please

    "No one has the 'right' to make it through work safely."

    So an employer has a right to expect an employee to die, at work.

    I kind of get what you were trying to say, but this was positively not the way to say it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      orbitalinsertion (profile), 12 Sep 2014 @ 11:37pm

      Re: Clarification, please

      I don't think it is an author's responsibility for readers creating non sequiturs.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Coyne Tibbets (profile), 13 Sep 2014 @ 9:16am

        Re: Re: Clarification, please

        Rights are often mutually exclusive, and the deletion of one Right often implies the creation of another.

        Right 1: Right of an employee to be safe at work. Right 2: Right of an employer to subject an employee to death risk. These are mutually exclusive rights, but balanced: If Right 1 does not exist, then the Right 2 well might.

        Consider the fireman mentioned above. His job is inherently dangerous and he cedes a portion of his Right 1 to do that job. Does that mean in turn that WE, as his employers have a Right to EXPECT that he die? Do WE have a Right to give him less than the best protection we can? If we assume Right 1 exists, then the answer is, "No," to both questions.

        But if Right 1 does not exist, then it should be clear that WE, the fireman's employers, have a Right to answer, "Yes!" to both questions.

        And yet the author of this piece asserts, "No one has the 'right' to make it through work safely." This is the same as asserting that Right 1 does not exist. ("Get in there and die, fireman, without any safety equipment.")

        So the author's assertion should offend every employee.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 13 Sep 2014 @ 9:53am

          Re: Re: Re: Clarification, please


          Right 1: Right of an employee to be safe at work. Right 2: Right of an employer to subject an employee to death risk.


          One problem with your analysis is that safety and risk are not absolute. There is no such thing as 100% safety, therefore all employees are subject to some risk of death at work. That doesn't mean right 1 doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean right 2 is absolute.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 13 Sep 2014 @ 11:38am

    It's almost as if

    It's almost as if the police are intentionally trying to portray themselves in the most craven, corrupt and awful light they can. Amazing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2014 @ 9:11pm

      Re: It's almost as if

      It works for the president why not every other corrupt organization?

      Used to be you hide the crimes you committed but now everyone can do it openly because Americans just don't give a dam until it affects them personally.

      Corruption at the top trickles down.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 13 Sep 2014 @ 12:02pm

    You should see the Ferguson photos

    You can't get better images of state oppression.

    The comparisons to first-person shooter mooks, such as the Combine units from Half Life 2 are so uncanny that it's hard to believe it wasn't intentional.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 13 Sep 2014 @ 12:03pm

    Mislink.

    Sorry, I was meaning to link here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2014 @ 8:51pm

    please give us money so we can beat you up, murder you, and generally act like criminals all the more often

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.