Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 61 of 64 pages
Or to put it another way, I'd be fine with disciplining an officer who says in an op-ed that it's OK to drive drunk as long as you're careful.
So would I. There a police officer would be advocating breaking the law and suggesting it was OK.
The good advice in Dutta's piece boils down to something Kurt Russell said in Silkwood: you aren't always obligated to stand toe to toe with people and call them a ############.
Dutta explicitly advocates breaking the law (by police officers) and explicitly argues that such law-breaking is OK.
Yeah this appears crystal clear. I'm shocked people are defending Dutta.
You're going to ask a cop to arrest people without a side-arm? I wouldn't ask a random person to "get off my lawn" without arming myself first. Much less go out in search of law breakers.
he would be fired the next morning. This is very close to that.
There's no law you have to live in ritzy Manhattan neighborhoods. NYC is a big place. They are also allowed to live in Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester or Putnam Counties.
You're going to ask a cop to arrest people without a side-arm? I wouldn't ask a random person to "get off my lawn" without arming myself first.
If some heroic citizen beat, tased, and pepper-sprayed Dutta for legitimately expressing his opinion that citizens should expect to be beaten, tased, and pepper-sprayed for legitimately expressing the opinion that cops are racist pigs.
And you attract more Officer McFriendlys to replace the Officer McNastys in part by paying the Officer McFriendlys enough to give them and their families financial security.
On one hand I hear that basically all cops are bad, they all do this stuff and have this attitude, and they pretty much always get away with it without consequence. And on the other hand you are also saying hey these actions are clearly and unambiguously against the law.
Clearly the idea of defending his right to express an opinion is not the same as defending the opinion. I am shocked this continues to trip people up.
1. The pay is already very good when overtime, pensions and benefits are included.
If the pay package is enough to enable a policeman to be able to support a family comfortably in the city in which he's working, then the pay is sufficient. Otherwise not.
I fail to see your "gotcha" here, buddy. The law is pretty clear re: civil rights. The problem - the fact that makes "basically all cops bad" - is that cops don't believe the law is the law. They believe THEY are the law.
So would I. There a police officer would be advocating breaking the law and suggesting it was OK. A law enforcement officer can't publicly condone law breaking. I think that is a different matter though than what we have here.
Man, and you accuse others of red herrings? No one has suggested that Dutta's right to express and opinion be infringed.
Concur. I don't know any non-unionized job in the world where you could write an op-ed saying that you and your fellow employees completely ignore the laws and the policies governing your work, and not faces consequences.
Count me among the many here surprised that you're taking his side here.
The people of the UK, with all their fancy welfare state, don't even have basic rights of self-defense, and free speech (official secrets act, laws against "offensive" or "insulting" speech.
If all these actions are so clearly illegal - to the point you are willing to fire someone over maybe endorsing them - then why is it not being prosecuted?
If Dutta wants to conduct an illegal search, just comply!
David and others have suggested firing him. I am going to call that infringing.
If he asks and you comply it is not illegal.
Because the people in charge of prosecuting them for breaking the law are...themselves. And the IA departments that are just as corrupt. And the DA offices who never met a cop they didn't like, because cops will testify to whatever the DA argues, and juries always believe the cops testimony regardless of the other evidence.
That's being held accountable for your speech. Those aren't the same things.
If he casually suggests that a blow job would get you out of a traffic ticket, it's not illegal, it's consensual sex between adults.
So, you'll trade free speech and self-defence for no open container laws, and jaywalking. Good to know.
So this right of yours doesn't really exist in today's world, right?
The fact is that cops, like most people making $50-100K, don't want to live in those neighborhoods.
I think it laughable that you are comparing that to "May I search your car, sir?"
The point you elide every time is that it's not about "may I search your car?" It's about what happens after you have the audacity to say "no, officer, I don't comply with that request."
People shouldn't have to give up their basic civil liberties to hold a Gov't job.
Well yeah. So based on a published Op-Ed we should fire someone (for representing a typical cop I am told, not for being unusual in any degree), and then go on to fire 95% of all police (leaving only the "good" ones behind I suppose). Well yes I strongly suspect police brutality would fall to an all time low at that point.
And, I'm not saying that. My only point is that strict gun control tends to go hand-in-hand with other restrictions on liberty that most Americans find intolerable.
See this is what I mean. I have expressed dozens of times I disagree with cop dude, but support his right to express his opinion, and I get endless "you are taking his side". Can no one read for comprehension?
Because if it's a goal---which I realize you don't share---to have policemen more closely connected to the communities where they patrol, then the issue of housing affordability is very relevant. A policeman's relationship to the community he's patrolling is a bit more critical to his work than that of a government lawyer or accountant.
That's being held accountable for your speech. Those aren't the same things.
So being accountable means being fired for expressing an opinion about de facto legal activities within your sphere of knowledge? And you claim that would not have a chilling effect on free speech? OK then, I disagree. I think freedom of expression is a paramount civil right and needs to be vigilantly protected and even encouraged wherever possible.
If he had written "I am always suspicious of black men so I tend to stop and frisk them even when they're minding their own business," would you still be supporting the notion that he not be fired?
He's not being fired for what he said. He's being fired because he admits he won't do his job.
because peering into someone's mind is pretty dicey.
Why? We have his words. We don't need to hire a mind reader.
And by the way this is just stupid. If he asks and you comply it is not illegal. If he searches with a warrant or your OK it is illegal (there are other fiddly bits here also). Him wanting is not what makes the search legal or not and calling it "an illegal search" in this context is just plain dumb.
It is within his rights to ask and your rights to say no. And every cop I have ever spoken with is amazed more people don't say no and recommends people say no. But why let facts get in the way of your narrative.
Dutta is saying "That's the way it is. that's how we operate. deal with it." And he was completely unapologetic about it.
But I have no problem being outraged by what happened in St. Paul. and working to reduce such incidents in the future,
A good start would be to can the member of the force who unapologetically said "That's the way it is. that's how we operate. deal with it." That's not punishment, that's "working to reduce such incidents in the future."
And in addition to that, you need to have a police force that not only resembles the community demographically, but that is drawn from the community itself. When a cop clocks out he or she should drive home, to a residence in the community she or he has been policing.
but that doesn't mean that a place like Ferguson can find a full police force from its residents.
So would I. There a police officer would be advocating breaking the law and suggesting it was OK. A law enforcement officer can't publicly condone law breaking.
Then please stop the faux outrage over the idea of firing a cop for expressing an opinion.
Apparently 1400+ English girls were raped and otherwise exploited by a group of Pakistani Muslim men, targeted explicity because they were white and Christian, with the local authorities basically ignoring it, for fear of seeming "racist".
You have to work with the police, changing the culture with the introduction of more cameras and other recording equipment, changed internal investigation procedures, and so on. You don't want to make this a war between reformers and cops, because right now cops are way more highly thought of in the general public than your typical civil rights reformer.
David, given the notoriety of this op-ed piece and the passions that it's inflamed, and given the the author put his name and his LAPD affiliation right up front, it's almost literally impossible to believe that if he'd had even the slightest reputation of being a "bad" cop even by the broadest definition of the word, that there wouldn't be someone out there who'd want the world to know the "real" background of this Monster.
Think about it: Is there a single public figure you can think of whose dirty laundry can't be found with a few clicks of the mouse?
Wouldn't you think that a "fascist" like Dutta would have left some sort of a trail of disgruntled citizens behind him after all this time, if he were really as much of a Monster as you're making him out to be?
Wow, you can't summon any outrage over this without taking a pot shot at the Catholic Church?
Sad. No concerns at all over any evil, unless it's perpetrated by whites against non-whites.
That's a stupid decision by the authorities. They should no more ignore rape in the Muslim communities than they should ignore child rape in Catholic communities.
Why should I extend to you and yours what you actively refuse for others, including "the multi-culturalists" like myself?
It's bizarre, and also not true for most large cities. Yeah, maybe in Beverly Hills the cops can't afford to live there, but in NY, or LA or Chicago? There are tons of neighborhoods cops can afford.
But, like many of us, they'd rather live in the suburbs. Why should they be denied that basic civil right, to live where they choose?
targeted explicity because they were white and Christian,
I'm just pointing out the blindness of the multi-culturalists to the reality of what we are importing into our countries.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 8.9998 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed