Declaration of Occupy Wall Street

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, the union is not in place to protect corrupt cops.

If you could please back that up with some facts, I'd appreciate it.

The union is paid by the dues of it's members. The duty of the union is to do what is right for it's members, otherwise, it wouldn't get paid(no different than a lawyer or any principle/agent relationship). How then can the union not protect corrupt cops? If you are going to say they police themselves, I don't see that on this video nor have I seen it in real life.

I'm sorry, but I have never seen anything to suggest what you say is correct.
 
If you could please back that up with some facts, I'd appreciate it.

The union is paid by the dues of it's members. The duty of the union is to do what is right for it's members, otherwise, it wouldn't get paid(no different than a lawyer or any principle/agent relationship). How then can the union not protect corrupt cops? If you are going to say they police themselves, I don't see that on this video nor have I seen it in real life.

I'm sorry, but I have never seen anything to suggest what you say is correct.

I'm a union member, and so are all my workers. We ain't worried we are corrupting da police. :)
 
If you could please back that up with some facts, I'd appreciate it.

The union is paid by the dues of it's members. The duty of the union is to do what is right for it's members, otherwise, it wouldn't get paid(no different than a lawyer or any principle/agent relationship). How then can the union not protect corrupt cops? If you are going to say they police themselves, I don't see that on this video nor have I seen it in real life.

I'm sorry, but I have never seen anything to suggest what you say is correct.

Show me in the bylaws anywhere it states that it's purpose is to protect corrupt cops.

If the union is, indeed, doing what is best for it's members, then protecting corrupt cops would have a negative effect on union members who are not corrupt.

Just like the conservatives protecting corrupt Republicans has a negative effect on the Republican party as a whole. LOL
 
I am still shaking my head at some of the spineless posts in here. Sheesh. :lol:

I mean, you gotta obey the law and obey police officers..! Gimme a break.
 
If you could please back that up with some facts, I'd appreciate it.

The union is paid by the dues of it's members. The duty of the union is to do what is right for it's members, otherwise, it wouldn't get paid(no different than a lawyer or any principle/agent relationship). How then can the union not protect corrupt cops? If you are going to say they police themselves, I don't see that on this video nor have I seen it in real life.

I'm sorry, but I have never seen anything to suggest what you say is correct.

Do you realize that unions would not defend a cop if there is a potential $$$$$$ lawsuit? At least 20 NYPD per year were fired. Some were imprisoned.
 
A) There was no unlawful order.
Quartzsite Police Officers Refuse to Follow Unlawful Orders. Read Their Official Letter « Bonfire's Blog
Resist Tyranny: Rochester, NY police arrest woman for video taping from her own yard
http://www.muni.org/Departments/works/traffic/Title9Rewrite/9.08.pdf
9.08.030 Obedience to police and fire department officials.
No person may willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a police officer or firefighter.

Unlawful Orders From Police | The Law Offices of James M. Freeman, P.C.
Unlawful Orders From Police

Bob Mionske is a former Olympian and cycling attorney/advocate out of Portland. Among other things, Bob now writes a column for Bicycling Magazine relating to bicycling and the law. Bob's most recent column involves a story about a cyclist who was ordered to, "Get off the f#@%*$! road!" by a police officer in Ohio. The cyclist was later violently arrested for failure to comply with an officer's order among other things.

This article addresses an interesting point. What do you do when an officer, out of ignorance or intention, orders or stops you, referring to laws that simply don't exist?

Bob addresses the legal issues involved in an officer giving an order that is based on a misconception of traffic laws:

"...if the cyclist hasn't broken a traffic law, then the cyclist can't be lawfully arrested, and the order to pull over is itself unlawful. Therefore, if the order is unlawful, the cyclist is not required to obey the order, and can't be arrested for failure to comply.... For most of us, I suspect it's easier to just quietly comply with a law enforcement officer's misguided attempts to enforce laws that don't exist. Sure, we know the officer is wrong, but do we really want to go to jail to make that point, instead of wherever it is we happen to be going at that moment?"

While Bob recognizes some of the practical problems of disobeying an officer, I would point out that once you disobey the officer you can probably expect the situation to escalate exponentially. It is important in your dealings with police that you always act respectfully. Further, if it's just your word against the officer's you may have a hard time convincing a judge of your version of the facts. While, as Bob points out, you may have a technical legal basis to disobey an unlawful order, that probably doesn't mean much to someone who is willing to beat you down or send you to jail over a matter of ego.

If you are deprived of your civil rights by a police officer there may be a civil cause of action against the police officer and/or the governmental entity of which he/she is an agent. This isn't something to bring up at the scene. It will probably only make things worse. Few things will throw someone into a rage better than a well-founded announcement that they are going to be sued. If you find yourself in such a situation you should do your best to keep from escalating things.

So yes there is such thing as unlawful order and false arrest. That's why 90% of charges during 2004 RNC Convention were dropped as it was found unlawful/illegal.

B) If the vet felt the order was unlawful he would have been better served to address that in court.
It's up to you to chose easy way or hard way and you can chose to be a docile, complacent citizen and take it as they please while they trample over your Constitutional "rights". Or you can stand your ground like an American Patriot and show them who is wrong. Neither choice is wrong. The only person who is in the wrong is a cop breaking the law and Constitution.

So you are a mind reader now? :lol: What you see is a man disobeying the police with his hands in his pockets
aren't you too? Did cop tell him to take his hands off his pockets?

I'm just seeing what I see - starting from 0:35. You can clearly see cop yelling and pointing at the air which implies - "LEAVE!"

See video starting from 0:45.

I don't see anything that is excessive. *shrug*
right. the cops stopped beating when the guy taking video yelled "STOP!"
 
Do you realize that unions would not defend a cop if there is a potential $$$$$$ lawsuit?

Actually, the unions are there to protect against a law suit. In fact, the union's only mode of (legal) protection of it's members is litigation. You can't sue a law firm for protecting it's client.

I won't argue that there are some cases that the union can't win, but they are just that, unwindable cases. And, they are rare.

It's just the way things work.
 
Actually, the unions are there to protect against a law suit. In fact, the union's only mode of (legal) protection of it's members is litigation. You can't sue a law firm for protecting it's client.

I won't argue that there are some cases that the union can't win, but they are just that, unwindable cases. And, they are rare.

It's just the way things work.

They are not suing law firm. They are suing the city/police department.

Many cases are winnable but unfortunately... since justice is dependent on how much you have in your pocket, they end up in settlements with no fault clause.

The only way to win is if there is a video and that is typically unwinnable case for union and police department because FBI is usually involved.
 
Actually, the unions are there to protect against a law suit. In fact, the union's only mode of (legal) protection of it's members is litigation. You can't sue a law firm for protecting it's client.

I won't argue that there are some cases that the union can't win, but they are just that, unwindable cases. And, they are rare.

It's just the way things work.

I guess you've never heard of "mediation"?
 
You really are a sad little troll of a man.:(

Pick a side. You support corrupt cops in nearly every post you make related to law enforcement topics. Now you are posting quotes to denigrate the unions for keeping corrupt cops on their rosters. **eye roll inserted**

Again there is an issue with your reading. I have said, quite frequently, that officer's guilty of wrongdoing should be punished. Our opinions differ on whether some of these officer's are guilty of wrongdoing.
 
Again there is an issue with your reading. I have said, quite frequently, that officer's guilty of wrongdoing should be punished. Our opinions differ on whether some of these officer's are guilty of wrongdoing.

Flip flop, flip flop.
 
Again there is an issue with your reading. I have said, quite frequently, that officer's guilty of wrongdoing should be punished. Our opinions differ on whether some of these officer's are guilty of wrongdoing.

And yet you seem willing to defend cops even when they're clearly in the wrong to most people.
 
They are not suing law firm. They are suing the city/police department.

Many cases are winnable but unfortunately... since justice is dependent on how much you have in your pocket, they end up in settlements with no fault clause.

The only way to win is if there is a video and that is typically unwinnable case for union and police department because FBI is usually involved.

Actually, you better have the sound off on that video otherwise it's inadmissible.

You may sue the city and the city may want to fire the cop, but the union is there to prevent it, if possible. Now, I'm not saying that some smart people don't get together and say, "if you let us get rid of this guy negotiations will go smoother later" doesn't happen. I'm just saying, it's their job to protect the cop.

And, I see your point.
 
Actually, you better have the sound off on that video otherwise it's inadmissible.

You may sue the city and the city may want to fire the cop, but the union is there to prevent it, if possible. Now, I'm not saying that some smart people don't get together and say, "if you let us get rid of this guy negotiations will go smoother later" doesn't happen. I'm just saying, it's their job to protect the cop.

And, I see your point.

It is not the union's job to protect the cop if he is corrupt. He needs to hire a lawyer for that.
 
url=http://bonfiresblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/quartzsite-police-officers-refuse-to-follow-unlawful-orders-read-their-official-letter/]Quartzsite Police Officers Refuse to Follow Unlawful Orders. Read Their Official Letter « Bonfire's Blog[/url]
Resist Tyranny: Rochester, NY police arrest woman for video taping from her own yard
http://www.muni.org/Departments/works/traffic/Title9Rewrite/9.08.pdf


Unlawful Orders From Police | The Law Offices of James M. Freeman, P.C.


So yes there is such thing as unlawful order and false arrest. That's why 90% of charges during 2004 RNC Convention were dropped as it was found unlawful/illegal.

Of course there IS such a thing. Was there an unlawful order in this case? I don't think so.

It's up to you to chose easy way or hard way and you can chose to be a docile, complacent citizen and take it as they please while they trample over your Constitutional "rights". Or you can stand your ground like an American Patriot and show them who is wrong. Neither choice is wrong. The only person who is in the wrong is a cop breaking the law and Constitution.

There is a 3rd option One could walk away like a law abiding American Patriot and file your complaints legally through out court system if one feels the actions are wrong

aren't you too? Did cop tell him to take his hands off his pockets?
I'm just seeing what I see - starting from 0:35. You can clearly see cop yelling and pointing at the air which implies - "LEAVE!"

It certainly appears the officer is ordering him to leave. Beyond that, I am not going to hazard a guess.

See video starting from 0:45.
right. the cops stopped beating when the guy taking video yelled "STOP!"

*shrug*
 
Flip flop, flip flop. Someone is trying to emulate the Newt.:lol:
 
Of course there IS such a thing. Was there an unlawful order in this case? I don't think so.
Seeing how 90% of 1,800 arrests were unlawful in the past.... yep this is another typical case of unlawful order. and seeing that Oakland PD is notorious for police brutality, police corruptions, and civil rights violations... yep another case of unlawful order.

There is a 3rd option One could walk away like a law abiding American Patriot and file your complaints legally through out court system if one feels the actions are wrong
what does it matter if all 3 options are not illegal? It's America. You're free to make a choice and cops are free to make poor/illegal choice as well.

It certainly appears the officer is ordering him to leave. Beyond that, I am not going to hazard a guess.
there you go.

that's fine. You can shrug all you want but this war hero is not going to shrug and let them trample over his rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top