Well the right for workers to assemble is a constitutionally protected right. First amendment, you've heard of it. There's a lot of precedent backing that up, so your first suggestion is completely impossible and illegal.

The rest of your ideas are just "we should, we this, we that" garbage that blames society and the way people (which people?) think for problems that dont really exist.

I think you're confused. Workers have the right to unionize. Administrators have the right to hire replacement workers. Are you under the (false) impression that all government workers have unions?

The fact that you think police brutality and abuse of power is not a problem that really exists tells me all I need to know about how seriously I should weigh your opinion though.

Let's decrease crime by decreasing the wages of the middle class

I'm under the 100% correct assumption that you cant ban people from assembly in the United States. You cant just "get rid" of police unions unless you folded them into the military like the Gendarmerie or Guardia Civil. But seeing as a common complaint about police forces in the USA is their militarization I doubt you like that idea. Or maybe you do, I dont think the FBI does a very good job and would welcome it.

On the totem pole of American problems police abuse of power falls somewhere between concussions in football and music piracy. Its really not a big deal. A lot of the reason people care is because they've been kept purposefully ignorant of how laws are made in this country. Most people are mad at cops because they got arrested for drug shit, and they blame the police who arrested them because (1) they honestly believe the cops make the laws and/or (2) they think cops should just give them a break. The anti police rhetoric is fueled heavily by entrenched elites who are diverting people's unhappiness with the status quo to other working stiffs instead of the people who are fucking them over. With cops thats pretty easy, because people generally dont like being told what to do.

Lawmakers dont want voters blaming them for bad laws. That is how elections get lost.

That has worked for most of the past 25 years.

Ok, so the inverse of that would also apply. A guy who did many shitty things while on the job but died trying to save a life is still a generally bad cop who did a heroic thing. All of this is hypothetical anyway.

I think you missed the point of the "anecdote". It didn't really show an example of a bad cop. It showed an example of a bad police institution literally terminating an officer for not killing someone who did have an unloaded gun but was not threatening the officer at all. I don't think it's a coincidence that this good cop was a former Marine. Soldiers know what actual rules of engagement are. They don't "fear for their life" and shoot anything that moves. This officer is clearly qualified to handle intense and possible dangerous situations using his training and common sense. Police departments don't want that guy. They want the guy who is going to "eliminate the threat" first and explain it later.

In the other thread, I already agreed to modify "all cops are bad" to "all cops voluntarily associate and work for a bad institution". And once we extrapolate all these stories that you want to dismiss as anecdotes, the conclusion that should be reached is that JORR and I are correct. Police departments as currently operated are inherently corrupt organizations that do not serve communities the way they are designed and advertised to. It seems to me that it's not really a stretch, not "ignorant and short sighted" at all, to say that these institutions flush out cops like Stephen Mader who actually could be a force for good in the community, and reward killer cops who will pull a trigger without hesitation or context.

I think you have something in you that is some sort of anarchist. You refuse to be reasonable in the face of numbers or any other evidence. The vast majority of people in this country do not treat the police as heroes. Their families I see do and maybe their immediate friends but most people are simply either respectful or neutral. To assume that with 765,000 cops that they are nearly all "inherently corrupt" or terrorizing the population at large is flat out ridiculous. Somewhere there are fact not opinions and you should find them. Similar to 168 black people being killed the numbers of other infractions are likely shockingly low in light of the total force numbers. Additionally, I would think you will find the locations of such troubles concentrated in "pockets" that are not nationwide.

I wondered about your post from a awhile back and thought you were trolling. But is it clear to me that in fact you cannot feel pride about anything in this country. It is sad. I am sorry for whatever the military, police or the country at large has done to you.

Ok just checking on you.

This is just stupid on every front. Nobody thinks cops make laws, and almost everybody can differentiate between the jobs of a police officer and a lawmaker. Blame doesn't need to be mutually exclusive between the two. Officers don't get let off the hook because hey, just doing my job pal.

Also, you're having trouble comprehending what you are trying to argue against with unions. The local and state governments could absolutely fold police unions if they so desired. Make the pay worth it and they would easily be able to get replacement officers and refuse to hire those who unionize. You might not like that, but you're simply wrong if you believe they don't have the legal power to do that.

So if officers cannot get off the hook by just the "just doing my job" excuse, that means they shouldn't be held responsible for not enforcing bad laws. According to you, that makes sense. Doesn't that make police lawmakers in way? Like if weed shouldn't be banned and cops stop busting people for weed, aren't they hijacking the legal system? I'm guessing you dont have a problem with cops who aren't nailing people for expired stickers since the SOS stopped mailing out notices. You can kind of see where people get the impression that police make laws, and how selective people are about how we feel about that. If it means I can talk my way out of speeding ticket: GOOD. If it means I'm not getting off the hook for cocaine possession: BAD.

Look, despite not really knowing what the first amendment does I assume you have some civics knowledge, more than the average American (who has close to none). Even you fell into a trap where you said cops dont make laws, but then blamed cops for enforcing laws you dont like. Then you said those people, despite how difficult their job is, dont deserve a union. In fact, they should be banned from unionizing. I think a reasonable person understands that those who are under the most threat are the ones most entitled to the protections unions afford.

We need a union for poor whites and minorities then

Are you saying we dont?

So if officers cannot get off the hook by just the "just doing my job" excuse, that means they shouldn't be held responsible for not enforcing bad laws. According to you, that makes sense. Doesn't that make police lawmakers in way? Like if weed shouldn't be banned and cops stop busting people for weed, aren't they hijacking the legal system? I'm guessing you dont have a problem with cops who aren't nailing people for expired stickers since the SOS stopped mailing out notices. You can kind of see where people get the impression that police make laws, and how selective people are about how we feel about that. If it means I can talk my way out of speeding ticket: GOOD. If it means I'm not getting off the hook for cocaine possession: BAD.

Look, despite not really knowing what the first amendment does I assume you have some civics knowledge, more than the average American (who has close to none). Even you fell into a trap where you said cops dont make laws, but then blamed cops for enforcing laws you dont like. Then you said those people, despite how difficult their job is, dont deserve a union. In fact, they should be banned from unionizing. I think a reasonable person understands that those who are under the most threat are the ones most entitled to the protections unions afford.

Please stop changing my argument to make your counterargument easier. You keep saying I want to ban unions when I never said that. You also can't point out one quote in this thread that demonstrates I don't know what the first amendment does. You, however, seem to be under the impression that because unions have a right to be formed, employers must hire unionized employees. That is not the case. As JORR said, public service unions are particularly a problem. Police unions defend and help cover up criminal cops. I understand a union's job is to defend and represent ALL of its members, but it's pretty easy to form a "nah, fuck police unions" argument as long as they keep doing that. Even very pro-cop board members seem to agree that the bad apples in the group need to be eliminated.

FF you can also give him the Reagan FAA air traffic controllers union or any run of the mill executive order can remove police unions as they are deemed essential to blah, blah, blah.

Air traffic controllers still have a union.

You said you wanted to "get rid" of police unions, which I guess isn't exactly banning them. I dont know how else you get rid of unions other than ban them, though. You can try and hire non-union cops but eventually the ranks will realize people like Nas, who think the only good cop is a dead cop, exist and decide organizing is a good idea. And who can really blame them? Even you said people have too much respect for police! Now! In 2016 with all this shit going on and people massacring cops in the street and being able to just make something up like "all cops are Nazis" and getting people to agree with you, you think cops get too much respect. Good luck telling cops they dont need to organize, especially when their bosses are officials elected by people just like you and Nas who have obviously lost all touch with reality when it comes to this issue.

You said you wanted to "get rid" of police unions, which I guess isn't exactly banning them. I dont know how else you get rid of unions other than ban them, though. You can try and hire non-union cops but eventually the ranks will realize people like Nas, who think the only good cop is a dead cop, exist and decide organizing is a good idea. And who can really blame them? Even you said people have too much respect for police! Now! In 2016 with all this shit going on and people massacring cops in the street and being able to just make something up like "all cops are Nazis" and getting people to agree with you, you think cops get too much respect. Good luck telling cops they dont need to organize, especially when their bosses are officials elected by people just like you and Nas who have obviously lost all touch with reality when it comes to this issue.

If I recall right the one they had was dissolved and they were all fired. If they were allowed another I didn't know that.

I'm under the 100% correct assumption that you cant ban people from assembly in the United States.

You're all over the map here. You think police brutality isnt a problem even though they kill hundreds of civilians a year, if not thousands. And yet, when 6 cops get murdered all of a sudden it's "people massacring cops on the street". Get fucking real.

Oh, and once again, nobody said all cops are nazis or even came close to implying that. You have yet to make a good counterargument that didn't involve blatantly making shit up that was never said by anybody.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

You're all over the map here. You think police brutality isnt a problem even though they kill hundreds of civilians a year, if not thousands. And yet, when 6 cops get murdered all of a sudden it's "people massacring cops on the street". Get fucking real.

Oh, and once again, nobody said all cops are nazis or even came close to implying that. You have yet to make a good counterargument that didn't involve blatantly making shit up that was never said by anybody.

Wait... you have said in the past (and correctly so) that the threat of terrorism is way overblown and that it's not a big problem. I'm sure terrorism kills more people in the world than cops do. Why is the cop issue a big deal but terrorism is completely overblown?

In order to filter all the issues that affect the United States' total outlier status when it comes to crime in the western world down to bad cops is reductionist to the point of absurdity.

You certainly can ban unions or at least make them virtually powerless.

For instance, police officers are not allowed to go on strike.

Weird, I see Dolphin looking in my asshole

And yet again, something nobody ever said.