DOJ Tells Ferguson Cops To Stop Wearing 'I Am Darren WIlson' Bracelets
Source: TPM
By CATHERINE THOMPSON Published SEPTEMBER 27, 2014, 12:21 PM EDT
The U.S. Justice Department has asked the Ferguson, Mo. Police Department to order its officers to stop wearing bracelets in support of Darren Wilson, the white officer who fatally shot an unarmed black teenager last month.
The DOJ wrote Friday in a letter to Ferguson police Chief Tom Jackson that the bracelets "upset and agitated" people and "reinforce the very 'us versus them' mentality that many residents of Ferguson believe exists," according to Reuters. The agency wrote that residents told its investigators on the ground in Ferguson that they saw officers who oversaw protest sites Tuesday wearing "I Am Darren Wilson" bracelets.
A letter sent to Ferguson police from the DOJ earlier this week also said investigators had noticed some officers either not wearing or obscuring the name tags on their uniform in violation of the police department's own rules, according to Reuters.
A photo purporting to show a cop wearing the "I Am Darren Wilson" bracelet circulated widely this week on social media:
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/doj-tells-ferguson-cops-stop-wearing-darren-wilson-bracelets
3rdwaydem
(277 posts)Response to 3rdwaydem (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
bravenak
(34,648 posts)LOL!! What are you? A confederate soldier?
Cha
(295,911 posts)it's "name removed" now.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I lol'd because it was such an obvious troll. Some cave man crawled out of his hole to say stupid shit. I love this place.
Cha
(295,911 posts)tags.
"In a separate letter sent to Jackson earlier this week, the Justice Department said its investigators had observed Ferguson police officers not wearing, or obscuring, their name tags on their uniforms, a violation of the police department's rules."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5590188
brave~
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)Who this Name Removed person is - just smack my damn head!
tularetom
(23,664 posts)The good ones close ranks to protect the corrupt and brutal among them and as a result, their public image is that all cops are corrupt and brutal.
You would think they wouldn't have to be told to stop wearing those stupid bracelets or at least that their chief would be smart enough to see the potential long term damage from these images.
I know I'll catch a ration of shit for saying this but police unions are a huge part of this problem and that's why I don't share the same sympathies toward public unions that a lot of Democrats have.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The police officers' union closing ranks behind someone who shot and killed an unarmed teen does not have a parallel in the teaching field or the city or state social work field or the public building maintenance field.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I was a public employee for over 35 years (although not a union member for most of it) and I had ample opportunity to see examples of public unions circling the wagons to protect incompetent or even criminal actions by their members. Granted most of these cases did not involve consequences as serious as the Mike Brown case, although I recall one case where a building inspector, either lazy or on the take, overlooked some faulty wiring in a farm workers housing project and a little boy was killed in a fire that was caused by the defective work and was reinstated because of pressure bright to bear by his union. I've seen cases in public safety, public works, park and building maintenance, even clerical workers in the welfare and public health departments where unions refused to cooperate in getting rid of bad employees.
You mentioned teachers. If anything, teachers unions are worse than police when it comes to protecting the . My wife was employed for some years as an administrative employee with the local school district. Actually she was the secretary to the superintendent, and as such an exempt or non union employee. By her own estimate, she has sat through one hundred or more termination hearings for teachers, including some where mistreatment and even molestation were alleged to have taken place, and she says she saw many cases where other teachers or the union itself, would refuse to testify against their peers. I've heard the same from teachers who were pissed off that the profession was being wrongly accused of being full of malcontents or incompetents yet felt powerless to defend themselves because the unions were so powerful.
You can accuse me of a bias if you want but if so, it is a bias that comes from many years of observing the workings of governmental organizations and the unions that have become so powerful over the past half century.
And it's not just public employees. Or unions. No profession does an adequate job of self policing. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, architects, you name it, they all seem to think "there but for the grace of god go I" when confronted with misdeeds by one of their peers.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You right. I was mistaken. You were not doing one or the other. You were doing both.
BTW: unions vs. professions who don't police themselves--also conflating different issues.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I'm telling you the way it actually works.
If you don't want to believe it, that's your problem.
Now have a nice day, OK?
merrily
(45,251 posts)stated. Your reply 40 speaks for itself on that point.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Your experience is specific to your area. Unions can vary tremendously, as do their contracts, as do superintendents, as do school systems.
Unionism has been a big downward trend in this country for a long time; you don't seem aware of it. They are less powerful, not more powerful, than in the past.
Also, the states with the highest educational test scores are states with strong teachers unions.
Unions are not all-powerful, much power lies with management, regardless of the industry. The unions exist to resist the abuse of management, which happens everywhere.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Fifty years ago, public employee unions were virtually nonexistent in California.
In 1968, Ronnie Reagan signed the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, establishing collective bargaining for California's municipal and county employees. Since then membership in public sector unions in the state has grown to 2.4 million. Traditionally, salary in the public sector lagged behind private employees but the benefits, such as liberal vacation and sick leave policies and a generous pension system, compensated for the disparity in pay. Since then, public sector salaries have come to exceed those for similar jobs in private industry, and the benefits have grown even more attractive. For instance, it's not uncommon for long term public employees in California to retire at a higher level of pay than they earned while on the job. I myself currently receive 84% of what my salary was when I retired in 2000, plus my employer picks up the cost of my medicare supplement and my wife's (another $6k per year). That's all very generous, and I'm happy to be getting it, but it simply is not sustainable in areas of the state where unemployment exceeds 15%.
But 2.4 million employees is a big voting bloc, and they do vote.
demigoddess
(6,640 posts)seem to be the custom of allowing organizations to police their own. The NFL (Ray Rise case an example) Organizations like teachers should have an outside group looking at charges. Molestation etc, Michael Brown's killing should not be investigated by the union or the fellow employees. I would think we can find something better.
Bryce Butler
(338 posts)"I know I'll catch a ration of shit for saying this but police unions are a huge part of this problem and that's why I don't share the same sympathies toward public unions that a lot of Democrats have."
rpannier
(24,304 posts)or do you hate all unions?
ncjustice80
(948 posts)They are all corrupt like their members. Police should not have unions and should have extensive DOJ oversight!
rpannier
(24,304 posts)Hate to break it to you, but it's all public employees or none.
That's where the game is at.
Besides, if you're so upset at police and their unions, maybe you should refocus your anger at the public.
District Attorney offices have brought hundreds of indictments to trial over the past 10+ years and they seldom get a conviction
Face fact, the public, for the most part, won't convict the police even when there is ample video and eye witness testimony
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Cops get crazy pensions, can drive how they want, and kill brown people at will. Tell me again why these lapdogs of the 1% deserve a union?
rpannier
(24,304 posts)Reality
The public will NOT convict in the vast majority of cases
They deserve the protection of unions the same as all public employees do
Once one goes down, so do the rest.
Curious... your solution would be what exactly?
Because they get the same state and federal protections as everyone else in America
So if they're charged and found not guilty, are you arguing they should still lose their jobs?
Guilty no matter what?
You can choose to throw out caustic terms like 'apologist' all you want, but it doesn't change anything
Oh... and I am not your friend. I do not know you.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)1. Federal law/constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits law enforcement from having collective bargaining (similar to the military).
2. All officers must have body and dash cameras. Failure to do so may result in federal prosecution.
3. Civilian police may not carry the following items as part of routine patrol- firearms, body armor, tazers, or batons.
4. Should an emergency requiring weapons break out such as a school shooting, the chief of police must authorize the weapons being released from the police armory. Following the incident, the DOJ will investigate the incident and file charges against the officers involved as appropriate.
NickB79
(19,113 posts)Frankly, your "comprehensive" plan is anything but.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Are going to be hours away instead of the usual minutes.
I'm sure that battered wife being held at knife or gunpoint will appreciate the time you feel is necessary to fill out the paperwork to draw a baton.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)If it is a hostage situation (which is incredibly rare) they can lock down the area till an armed reaponse arrives. Lets be realistic- the VAST majority of police shootings are unjust murders. Only a tiny number of incidents need guns.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... you would pepper spray a man with a knife to someone's neck?
You obviously can't get past your obvious bias against cops to have a rational discussion.
I do find it extremely convenient that in your scenario, someone else is going to have to pay the price for your little plan. I'm sure it's worth a few lives, both civilian and LE, to make you feel better right?
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Or do you support police brutality? Because that is what this is about.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Removing all tools of force from police is just as stupid as giving them each an individual tank.
As for police in the UK they still have access to a wide variety of tools and levels of force without the added wrinkle of living in a culture where access to firearms is a fundamental right.
You just seem to want to turn them into your personal whipping boy because of your personal dislike for them.
Also, you haven't addressed how your plan only seems to come at a cost to others. How super duper convenient...
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Oktober
(1,488 posts)No one in my section seems to have a problem.
If you are in that much fear and can't run the statistics then maybe a visit to the therapist would help?
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Oktober
(1,488 posts)Is this the part where you tell me that all that WRAL has is scary bad news and scary stories so that must reflect society?
rpannier
(24,304 posts)As well you should
Selective support of unions is part of the reason why our economy is in such bad shape
Public employees, which have stronger unions, make good money and help move the economy
Private employees are small in union numbers and so, private employees get screwed
George II
(67,782 posts)...the headline says "TELLS", the article says "ASKS". Big difference, and obviously the headline was written to get more attention.
marble falls
(56,358 posts)and telling me to get out of my car?
Did the Cops stop wearing the bracelet? Asking is the first step in a process that brings about a stated goal.
1. Ask
2. Tell
3. Order
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I saw the 'tell' in the title and was mystified. The US DOJ doesn't govern state/city/county law enforcement procedures. They would have no authority to tell the cops to remove the bracelets and couldn't legally enforce any such demand.
That's the distinction.
marble falls
(56,358 posts)regulation through the Department of Justice. There are auditors located all around in every Federal District.
And cops may or may not may not follow procedure that may or may not be Constitutional. The difference is basically that cops won't get shot by the DOJ. But you or I might well get shot by a cop.
So the Fed has a lot of might to bring to bear. A suggestion is a good as a District Court order after a trial prosecuted by the district US State Attorney (this is where guys like "America's Mayor", MR 911 himself, Giuliani got his start) after an investigation by the FBI or the Civil Rights Enforcement div of the DoJ itself, 90% of the time.
Most people pay attention to a DoJ suggestion.
George II
(67,782 posts)marble falls
(56,358 posts)it shouldn't have to fallen on the DoJ to point it out. Where was the chief?
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)and no FEMA money for Missouri if there are tornadoes or floods.
You want your FEMA money? You want your highway money? Then indict Darren Wilson.
Show me, Missouri.
Response to bluestateguy (Reply #6)
Name removed Message auto-removed
merrily
(45,251 posts)Who do you think would be most hurt by your suggestion?
whopis01
(3,467 posts)someone who is trying to survive after just having lost their house to a tornado is a great way to make a point.
"It's a shame you lost your house, but there are some real asshole cops over in Ferguson. Why don't you complain to your governor and get something done about that. Then we can talk about getting you some aid."
That sounds like a wonderfully moral, ethical, and compassionate approach.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)They still believe they are an army of soldiers occupying a hostile locality. Great for long term relations with the community......................
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)they are hastening the day that this nation becomes utterly fascist and even more lawless.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)And bear with me on this, it's a case of "the best defense is a good offense". What I mean by that is that they know he screwed up but they are unwilling to throw him under the bus and are thus using that campaign an attempt to blunt the prosecution's opposition, one that will likely bring the hammer and tongs on the whole force.
Still a weaselish behavior though.
Response to Populist_Prole (Reply #7)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)But the only people cops are there to protect and serve are themselves. Assholes.
tblue37
(64,980 posts)Response to Populist_Prole (Reply #7)
Post removed
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)I currently live and grew up about 80 miles southeast of St. Louis, so it has always been the city I've known the best. I've also traveled to most cities of any decent size in the lower 48, and I have yet to find one that is as segregated as is St. Louis. As bad as it looks from media reports, etc., it's truly one of those "you have to see it for yourself" places, to truly understand how bad it is now. I won't even go in to how much worse it used to be.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)St. Louis city is about 45% Caucasian (German, Italian, English and Slavic), 50% Black and 5% Latino and Asian. St. Louis County, where Ferguson is, is probably 70% white, 25% Black and 5% Latino and Asian. Both the city and the county are poster children for 'white flight'.
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)Black alone - 151,755 (47.7%)
White alone - 135,953 (42.7%)
Hispanic - 11,598 (3.6%)
Asian alone - 9,220 (2.9%)
Two or more races - 8,032 (2.5%)
American Indian alone - 871 (0.3%)
Other race alone - 743 (0.2%)
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Chakab
(1,727 posts)If the chief was serious about that apology, he would have addressed this issue as soon as it was publicized.
Response to Chakab (Reply #11)
Name removed Message auto-removed
tblue37
(64,980 posts)C Moon
(12,188 posts)and of course, the officer is wearing military fatigue greenwhatever happened to police blue?
merrily
(45,251 posts)dickthegrouch
(3,151 posts)They are so much in solidarity with the murdering thug Wilson, that they want to go to jail with him.
"I am Darren Wilson" clarifies their desire to be held guilty along with him.
I hope!
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)if it said, "I am going to kill myself by indulging in jelly donuts so sue me."
mimi85
(1,805 posts)but not much is a surprise anymore.
I posted this at the end of a thread yesterday, which no doubt got lost in the shuffle. No big deal.
It's beyond ridiculous. I guess the 1st amendment is only applied to those who toe the line. It totally sucks!
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)it has everything to do with behaving appropriately while on duty. i could care less if they wear those bracelets while off duty.
24601
(3,940 posts)government disagrees with the content" is very much a 1st amendment issue.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:53 PM - Edit history (1)
i cannot see how anyone thinks that's ok. would an "i shooot black people in the back while they have their hands up" bracelet be free speech? no, it would inappropriate while on duty, just as this bracelet is.
KinMd
(966 posts)telling local agencies what to wear. If the Chief tells them not to wear the bracelets or it's against the uniform regs then I get it
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)i am wilson = i shoot black people in the back with their hands up. it is totally inappropriate, even for ferguson.
24601
(3,940 posts)masks the identity of the wearer nor affects performance by restricting field of view.
But take it half-way. Would you support officers wearing a hoodie? Will you uphold the support of T. Martin or hold that hoodies are inappropriate in uniform & on duty.
My position is that the message is not the issue. Instead, it's whether officers should be sending ANY message in uniform & on duty.
If the department allows bracelets, going another step and regulating content does push this into a 1st Amendment.
Change the message slightly and presume some officers wear a bracelet that says, "God is my Partner", while others wear ones that say, "There is no God."
The proper departmental response is to determine that bracelets have no place in uniform, and not try to say bracelets with which we disagree have no place in uniform.
LTX
(1,020 posts)as non-governmental civilians. This has long been the case.
The determination of what speech is protected in the public employment context involves a two-part analysis. First, the speech must address a matter of public concern, and then the interest of the employee in speaking must be weighed against the interest of the State, as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. In other words, if the speech addresses a personal matter, its not protected by the First Amendment. If its a public matter, the court must balance the employees interest in expression against the governments interest in effectively discharging its duties.
Courts will inquire as to the point of the speech in question: Was it the employees point to bring wrongdoing to light? Or to raise other issues of public concern because they are of public concern? Or was the point to further some purely private interest? However, just because a police officer speaks out on a topic that may be deemed one of public concern does not automatically render their speech protected. The content and form of the speech, along with the surrounding circumstances, including the officers reasons for their remarks, are important factors in determining whether the officers speech is a matter of public concern.
In the case at hand, it would have to determined whether the bracelets are a form of personal speech, or speech addressing a public concern. I find it difficult to formulate any argument rendering the bracelets a form of speech addressing a public concern. Hence, I can only conclude at present that the bracelets are not protected speech, and police officers can be prevented from wearing them, whether by federal or local edict.
24601
(3,940 posts)of bracelets.
But if they allow officers to wear them, then the department loses when it comes to regulating the content.
And the federal government has no more power to prescribe state and local bracelet regulations than it has determining whether sheriffs must wear green or brown uniforms.
Likewise that state & local officials have no say in federal uniforms and/or accessory items.
LTX
(1,020 posts)The "content" of the bracelets is precisely the issue. If that "content" is a personal expression, first amendment jurisprudence has long held that it can be prohibited in the case of public employees, such as police officers. You need to bring that "content" within the the ambit of public concern, which I cannot (at present, absent some compelling argument to the contrary) see any argument for. The "bracelet" issue that you raise is simply a red herring.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)whilst on duty.
They are not allowed to make overt religious or politically partisan statements, either by verbal or symbolic presentation.
I'm not saying they are compelled to observe that requirement in every instance or in every locale, I'm just saying the regulations are there and have been supported by adjudication.
These insanely provocative bracelets are a prime example why the regs are in place.
rock
(13,218 posts)"I am a murdering bully!" and get the same point across?
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I shoot for jaywalking.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)Isn't "I Am Darren Wilson" a confession?
EEO
(1,620 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)the chief's apology means very little if he doesn't put and end to this bracelet nonsense.
red dog 1
(27,648 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)these shitbags are not fit for duty.
candelista
(1,986 posts)That way they could remind themselves of who they are without offending anyone else.
The Wizard
(12,482 posts)He'll get indicted and the prosecution will deliberately present a weak case so he's found not guilty. Remember Rodney King was beaten to a pulp while lying defenseless on the ground and there was a video. The police were all acquitted in State Court.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Doug.Goodall
(1,241 posts)They will have the secret fist bump and code words like "Ductile Wire". Then only the 'cool' cops will be allowed in the covert club; the ones who 'really know' what the score is.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)shouldn't they be on paid administrative leave and not menacing the people of Ferguson?
Cha
(295,911 posts)who hopefully doesn't get away with murder like George Zimmerman did when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
The Ferguson MOPD will wear their DW bracelets but they won't wear their gd name tags.. which is against their own rules.. it screams that they don't give a shit about the law or people.. only their vicious power to kill.
"A letter sent to Ferguson police from the DOJ earlier this week also said investigators had noticed some officers either not wearing or obscuring the name tags on their uniform in violation of the police department's own rules, according to Reuters."
Mahalo, DonV
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Gothmog
(143,999 posts)These bracelets were stupid and inflammatory
TomCADem
(17,378 posts)If you are a person of color, and are stopped by a cop wearing this bracelet, is the message, "you could be next?"