StrangeSox

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 29, 2015 -> 10:19 AM) If people are actually believing the Crips and Bloods to be the voice of reason literally nobody is saying this.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 29, 2015 -> 10:12 AM) Yeah, the local drug dealer is all about keeping the neighborhood from going to hell. Police crackdowns and curfews aren't exactly good for business. edit: should point out that the rumor wasn't that they were starting or encouraging riots but that they were banding together to take out police officers.

speaking of going off the rails and complete blindness...

1) If you know what excluded middle means, why do you keep trying to say anyone who thinks that rumor is ridiculous must believe that these street gangs are now some sort of benevolent, crime-fighting organization? 2) It's not about "middle ground" or giving street gangs benefit of the doubt. These street gangs are s***ty, violent and destructive to their communities, but that doesn't mean we should take outlandish claims about them at face value.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Apr 29, 2015 -> 09:44 AM) didn't see this before I answered the other one but Yes this is the reason. I think you provided a little more information!

that's still not what excluded middle means. There are more possibilities than "now are crime fighting organizations that want to spread the word of peace" and that they're jointly coordinates riots and attacks on the BPD. Literally nobody has said the former, and recognizing how silly the latter is doesn't require it.

that's not what excluded middle means.

Something about inflammation maybe?

There's a big excluded middle between "now are crime fighting organizations that want to spread the word of peace" and "Bloods and Crips working together to start riots!!".

"those kids were set up" http://gawker.com/those-kids-were-set-up-1700716306

"Date rape" is the first one that came to mind, but DUI and others apply too.

what channel will this game be on?

don't think they thought that slogan through...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 12:45 PM) Stop playing dumb. You know no one means that. It is the rules that come into play when someone does act badly, after the fact to protect them. But that goes back to what I was saying--why are we assuming that BPD management would view these "rough rides" or similar behavior as acting badly? Because if management didn't have a problem with those sorts of thing, the rules aren't protecting anyone from anything. And further, we'd need evidence that union employment protection rules would actually prevent police management from disciplining or firing police officers for committing criminal acts and violating official department policy.

What rules allow police to engage in criminal violence against citizens?

But that seems more like a problem with what the rank-and-file cops actually think, not a problem over rules.

Oral arguments were held today in the SSM case at the Supreme Court. Several wrap-ups here, but the overall takeaway seems to be cautious optimism for at least requiring all states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states if not a requirement for same-sex marriages in all states. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015...ut-gay-marriage http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cou...218e_story.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supre...l?smid=pl-share

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 11:00 AM) I noted earlier that it would take some 'want to' from management, but that you need to start somewhere. You instead went with a 'it won't solve it by itself so it won't work' answer. 1) Why not start with creating a "want to" from management? 2) I went with a "I see no reason to see why this would solve anything at all, seems irrelevant" answer. When the LAPD went through reforms in the 1990's, was weakening the unions a necessary part of the process?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 10:47 AM) You're making a strange leap here. You seem to be saying the rules are not part of the problem? The rules that are there in part to do exactly what you are railing against? You've lost me. I'm assuming that there aren't union rules authorizing police abuse but instead provide some sort of due process protection for disciplinary action up to and including firing. The rules protecting the officers only matter here if they're preventing police management from making changes that they would otherwise like to make. I'm asking why we're assuming that police management isn't perfectly fine with these "rough rides." Because if they approve or at least turn a blind eye to it because they don't care, then union rules are irrelevant. edit: maybe I'm misunderstanding here. can you lay out what rules (generic reference is fine) were standing in the way of reforming BPD culture?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 10:38 AM) It does no such thing. You made that assumption. Read my post again. I said those rules protecting cops in ways that aren't good, are PART of the problem. And they are. No, the assumption is implicit. If these rules are part of the problem of police violence, then they must be protecting these cops from something. If management doesn't actually view this sort of behavior as "bad" policing and doesn't actually want to fire or discipline these cops, then these rules aren't protecting them from anything on this issue. Changing them wouldn't make a difference unless management actually would like to do something about it.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 10:26 AM) Read, I never said eliminate the unions. YOU did. Weakening unions so that police management can fire people who they deem "bad cops" more easily won't change what criteria police management uses to judge who's a "bad cop." I can't imagine that if police management actually wanted to curb these "rough rides" or if the CPD wanted to shut down their torture warehouse that the union would be the ones standing in the way. More likely, management either openly or tacitly approves of these sorts of things up to a certain point in the chain of command and then maintains deliberate ignorance and plausible deniability above that.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 10:23 AM) OK, so lets just do nothing then, since this won't magically solve the problem instantly. Stripping officers of their collective bargaining power won't change police culture and police management's views.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 10:19 AM) There are Republicans in California??? The Central Valley is, like most agricultural areas, heavily Republican. Orange County is often ground zero for right-wing politics (it's where Reagan and Nixon both came from).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 10:18 AM) It is part of the problem, sort of. The rules negotiated with the unions. But the departments and their municipalities are equally responsible for allowing those rules. So even that part of the problem is 50/50. This assumes that police management would label police who 'rough up' people as "bad cops" and would get rid of them if it weren't for the unions. I don't see any evidence for that.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 10:10 AM) but its the ones that don't get there, like your case, that just build up tensions but never get addressed. I bet the chief or a supervisor knew about it, or cases before yours. Yes, there has to be a 'want to' from management, but you have to start somewhere. Getting rid of police unions won't suddenly change police management's mind on excessive force.