General Discussion

Logical

(22,457 posts)

4. They are almost 100% untouchable......

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 07:21 PM

Jun 2014

Police "unions" protect obviously bad cops. And mos the times police investigate their own officers and find no wrong doing.
Citizen review boards would be better but police "unions" hate them.

Too many cops are bullies with unbelievable power available to them. Scary.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Deputies Drag Woman Out of Car for Trying to View Name Tag [View all] damnedifIknow Jun 2014 OP

Excessive for sure but never, ever touch a cop. dilby Jun 2014 #1

Didn't her tax dollars buy that name tag? misterhighwasted Jun 2014 #2

FDP. ~nt~ b.durruti Jun 2014 #3

They are almost 100% untouchable...... Logical Jun 2014 #4

Nice putting "unions" in quotes b.durruti Jun 2014 #6

agreed-- I'm a delegate on my county Central Labor Council... mike_c Jun 2014 #10

Hold on a second. Police unions protect their members against irregular prosecution. It's just like rhett o rick Jun 2014 #11

Read about the Philly PD and get back to me. n-t Logical Jun 2014 #16

Read "War and Peace" and dont bother getting back to me. nm rhett o rick Jun 2014 #19

Ahhh, how cute! n-t Logical Jun 2014 #20

We are in complete fucking agreement. The Philly PD's union exists to shield cops msanthrope Jun 2014 #22

More union bashing. The police couldnt be "protected" if the management handles their cases rhett o rick Jun 2014 #23

Damn straight I'll bash police unions...they serve no public good, and shield the lackeys msanthrope Jun 2014 #32

You are so clueless on this topic that you should not even respond...... Logical Jun 2014 #38

Yep, long history. Some people are too clueless to realize it. n-t Logical Jun 2014 #25

Well..they see "union" and think that's the end of the conversation. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #33

Are you kidding? Police unions are divisive political entities that serve the status msanthrope Jun 2014 #21

Law enforcement "unions" should be banned. Dawson Leery Jun 2014 #26

I agree. And some 3rd party board enacted. Police cannot investigate themselves correctly. n-t Logical Jun 2014 #28

Coolidge and FDR said the same thing. Dawson Leery Jun 2014 #30

People often make this mistake Blecht Jun 2014 #5

Here, let me help you with the first part of that statement. FreedRadical Jun 2014 #7

+1 GeorgeGist Jun 2014 #8

What was her crime ? Willful touch, yelling at a cop, possible fleeing possible public lumpy Jun 2014 #9

Her crime was touching I guess but they sure can touch us a whole lot damnedifIknow Jun 2014 #12

Unless the targets of their touching have guns... KansDem Jun 2014 #35

I don't know if I agree that this has become the norm these days aint_no_life_nowhere Jun 2014 #13

See. Misinformed. FreedRadical Jun 2014 #14

seems like a lot of people here think it's ok for people TorchTheWitch Jun 2014 #15

There are a dozen non-violent responses the cop could have gone with first. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #17

he wouldn't have known if it was a threat or not TorchTheWitch Jun 2014 #42

Yup, personally I'm bummed he didn't beat her, justifiably of course. . truebrit71 Jun 2014 #18

Tazed... KansDem Jun 2014 #36

I would have to agree with this. Orrex Jun 2014 #24

A waitress won't drag you from the table and handcuff you damnedifIknow Jun 2014 #27

So I'd be ok to grab the waitress, then? Orrex Jun 2014 #29

Of course not damnedifIknow Jun 2014 #31

So if I ask my waitress her name and I think she ignored me, I can grab her? Orrex Jun 2014 #39

Is the waitress a person detaining you by force? Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #40

So I can grab a cop if he's detaining me by force? Orrex Jun 2014 #41

Nobody should be lifting any vests when stopped by a police officer. LisaL Jun 2014 #34

Which is the usual response lately damnedifIknow Jun 2014 #37