Thinking about something:

For years you have advocated for and supported the roles of labor
unions. You recently defined the purposes of a labor union to include
looking out for the the interests of it's members in terms of
wages, working conditions and to protect against unreasonable
actions of management (paraphrasing). You indicated that in the
event of the termination of a union member by management, the union's
procedure is to file a grievance and fight or defend against the
termination for the benefit of the union member.

You also have very opposed to the strong armed actions and militaristic
tactics of police department policies and of the actions of police
officers, especially in light of the multiple killings of unarmed
civilians.

The police union is one of the strongest unions in the USA, if not the
strongest.

Doesn't this present somewhat of a conundrum for you?

It seems you support union efforts to protect the cops whose actions you
are so opposed to.

On 12/5/14 5:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Thinking about something:

For years you have advocated for and supported the roles of labor
unions. You recently defined the purposes of a labor union to include
looking out for the the interests of it's members in terms of
wages, working conditions and to protect against unreasonable
actions of management (paraphrasing). You indicated that in the
event of the termination of a union member by management, the union's
procedure is to file a grievance and fight or defend against the
termination for the benefit of the union member.

You also have very opposed to the strong armed actions and militaristic
tactics of police department policies and of the actions of police
officers, especially in light of the multiple killings of unarmed
civilians.

The police union is one of the strongest unions in the USA, if not the
strongest.

Doesn't this present somewhat of a conundrum for you?

It seems you support union efforts to protect the cops whose actions you
are so opposed to.





No conundrum.

Police unions usually provide their members accused of crimes with a
defense lawyer. That's part of why cops join and pay dues to their
unions. I support the efforts of unions to help their members, even if
those members are cops accused of a crime. Accused is not legally the
same as guilty or convicted. I assume the two cops who just got through
the grand jury process without indictments were represented by lawyers
whose fees were paid by the police union, but I don't know this for a
fact. I have no problem with that.


--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

On 12/5/2014 5:54 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 5:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Thinking about something:

For years you have advocated for and supported the roles of labor
unions. You recently defined the purposes of a labor union to include
looking out for the the interests of it's members in terms of
wages, working conditions and to protect against unreasonable
actions of management (paraphrasing). You indicated that in the
event of the termination of a union member by management, the union's
procedure is to file a grievance and fight or defend against the
termination for the benefit of the union member.

You also have very opposed to the strong armed actions and militaristic
tactics of police department policies and of the actions of police
officers, especially in light of the multiple killings of unarmed
civilians.

The police union is one of the strongest unions in the USA, if not the
strongest.

Doesn't this present somewhat of a conundrum for you?

It seems you support union efforts to protect the cops whose actions you
are so opposed to.





No conundrum.

Police unions usually provide their members accused of crimes with a
defense lawyer. That's part of why cops join and pay dues to their
unions. I support the efforts of unions to help their members, even if
those members are cops accused of a crime. Accused is not legally the
same as guilty or convicted. I assume the two cops who just got through
the grand jury process without indictments were represented by lawyers
whose fees were paid by the police union, but I don't know this for a
fact. I have no problem with that.

They may have lawyers but probably didn't need them. That's a major
flaw in the system. The prosecutor's office and the police
departments are joined at the hip with common interests. It takes a lot
for a cop to be prosecuted for anything ... as we are witnessing.

My lawyer friend sent me this link. Interesting viewpoint:

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/the-american-justice-system-is-not-broken-1666445407

On 12/5/14 6:23 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/5/2014 5:54 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 5:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Thinking about something:

For years you have advocated for and supported the roles of labor
unions. You recently defined the purposes of a labor union to include
looking out for the the interests of it's members in terms of
wages, working conditions and to protect against unreasonable
actions of management (paraphrasing). You indicated that in the
event of the termination of a union member by management, the union's
procedure is to file a grievance and fight or defend against the
termination for the benefit of the union member.

You also have very opposed to the strong armed actions and militaristic
tactics of police department policies and of the actions of police
officers, especially in light of the multiple killings of unarmed
civilians.

The police union is one of the strongest unions in the USA, if not the
strongest.

Doesn't this present somewhat of a conundrum for you?

It seems you support union efforts to protect the cops whose actions you
are so opposed to.





No conundrum.

Police unions usually provide their members accused of crimes with a
defense lawyer. That's part of why cops join and pay dues to their
unions. I support the efforts of unions to help their members, even if
those members are cops accused of a crime. Accused is not legally the
same as guilty or convicted. I assume the two cops who just got through
the grand jury process without indictments were represented by lawyers
whose fees were paid by the police union, but I don't know this for a
fact. I have no problem with that.

They may have lawyers but probably didn't need them. That's a major
flaw in the system. The prosecutor's office and the police
departments are joined at the hip with common interests. It takes a lot
for a cop to be prosecuted for anything ... as we are witnessing.

My lawyer friend sent me this link. Interesting viewpoint:

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/the-american-justice-system-is-not-broken-1666445407





I think a cop accused of a serious crime who doesn't have a lawyer or
doesn't have his union supply a lawyer to represent him is too dumb to
be a cop.



--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

On 12/5/2014 7:50 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 6:23 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/5/2014 5:54 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 5:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Thinking about something:

For years you have advocated for and supported the roles of labor
unions. You recently defined the purposes of a labor union to include
looking out for the the interests of it's members in terms of
wages, working conditions and to protect against unreasonable
actions of management (paraphrasing). You indicated that in the
event of the termination of a union member by management, the union's
procedure is to file a grievance and fight or defend against the
termination for the benefit of the union member.

You also have very opposed to the strong armed actions and militaristic
tactics of police department policies and of the actions of police
officers, especially in light of the multiple killings of unarmed
civilians.

The police union is one of the strongest unions in the USA, if not the
strongest.

Doesn't this present somewhat of a conundrum for you?

It seems you support union efforts to protect the cops whose actions
you
are so opposed to.





No conundrum.

Police unions usually provide their members accused of crimes with a
defense lawyer. That's part of why cops join and pay dues to their
unions. I support the efforts of unions to help their members, even if
those members are cops accused of a crime. Accused is not legally the
same as guilty or convicted. I assume the two cops who just got through
the grand jury process without indictments were represented by lawyers
whose fees were paid by the police union, but I don't know this for a
fact. I have no problem with that.

They may have lawyers but probably didn't need them. That's a major
flaw in the system. The prosecutor's office and the police
departments are joined at the hip with common interests. It takes a lot
for a cop to be prosecuted for anything ... as we are witnessing.

My lawyer friend sent me this link. Interesting viewpoint:

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/the-american-justice-system-is-not-broken-1666445407






I think a cop accused of a serious crime who doesn't have a lawyer or
doesn't have his union supply a lawyer to represent him is too dumb to
be a cop.



I was being facetious.