[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

So we agree that the union “protecting” this nurse had no idea about the murders. Meanwhile, the MPD union obviously knows about the murder, and supports the killer anyway.

I will now consider my claim (that police unions, unlike other public sector unions, support their members even when they murder people) to be true and not refuted.

And the first (and the only one before Mr. Floyd’s killer) police officer in the MPD to be punished (i.e. fired but not convicted) for killing a black person was Philando Castile’s killer.

So Mr. Floyd’s killer would have (correctly) assumed his union would support him, had already killed a person of colour with impunity once before, and had seen most police officers who killed people of colour get way with it.

There seems to be no reason to assume irrationality on the part of Mr. Floyd’s killer if we want to look at why he thought he would get away with it.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

So we agree that the union “protecting” this nurse had no idea about the murders.

Of course it must have had an idea that seven patients had died under her watch, due to "mistakes". She would then confess while on drug rehab that she intended to kill them, a necessary condition for establishing a murder charge. Without the confession, it could be a form of negligent homicide or manslaughter, one that for some reason went unreported to the legal authorities by both the care center and the nurse union.

Meanwhile, the MPD union obviously knows about the murder, and supports the killer anyway.

So you are saying the police union knows Chauvin intended to kill George Floyd? Has he confessed so?

I will now consider my claim (that police unions, unlike other public sector unions, support their members even when they murder people) to be true and not refuted.

You can "consider" whatever you want, it's easy to do when you lack arguments and prefer to pretend refutations did not happen.

And the first (and the only one before Mr. Floyd’s killer) police officer in the MPD to be punished (i.e. fired but not convicted) for killing a black person was Philando Castile’s killer.

And that was the last time it had happened without justification (keeping in mind only 4 African Americans in total were killed by MPD cops in 2013-2019, it's not too informative - we don't even know if the other 3 killings were justified or not, no matter how much you want to assume they were).

So Mr. Floyd’s killer would have (correctly) assumed his union would support him,

Sure, but he couldn't have assumed that means he could get away with an unjustified killing filmed on camera.

had already killed a person of colour with impunity once before, and had seen most police officers who killed people of colour get way with it.

How many of those killings were unjustified and how many of the unjustified ones were caught on camera?

There seems to be no reason to assume irrationality on the part of Mr. Floyd’s killer if we want to look at why he thought he would get away with it.

Only if you choose to disregard the relevant information that damages your case.

The truth is that the bulk of your "statistical" argument rests on presuming police killings are unjustified - and therefore criminal - until proven to the contrary, but that is not how presumption of innocence works in the justice system. This reasoning is no different from that used by those who used to engage in lynchings in the American South back in the day.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

You can do whatever mental gymnastics you want about the nurse. Even the most casual reading if the article clearly shiws that the union had no idea about the murders.

Meanwhile, the MPD union is currently supporting a murderer.

Also, you never answered one question:

If 100% of the cop killings led to no punishment at all, how many of the unjustified cop killings led to no punishment at all?

[wat0n]

@wat0n

You can do whatever mental gymnastics you want about the nurse. Even the most casual reading if the article clearly shiws that the union had no idea about the murders.

Meanwhile, the MPD union is currently supporting a murderer.

They might have not been sure about whether she had an intent to kill, but she had been suspended for "medication-related errors" in the past:

In 2007, Wettlaufer was hired onto the staff at Caressant Care, a long-term care home in Woodstock. She was initially regarded by co-workers at Carresant Care to be a caring and professional individual. However, throughout her tenure, Wettlaufer struggled with substance abuse and alcoholism. She faced accusations of showing up to work drunk, and at one point was found passed out in the facility's basement during the night shift. Wettlaufer was suspended four times for "medication-related errors", then was finally fired in March 2014 over a "serious" incident in which she gave the wrong medication to a patient.[6]

Also, you never answered one question:

If 100% of the cop killings led to no punishment at all, how many of the unjustified cop killings led to no punishment at all?

The premise of this question is wrong, by your own admission.

And the first (and the only one before Mr. Floyd’s killer) police officer in the MPD to be punished (i.e. fired but not convicted) for killing a black person was Philando Castile’s killer.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

The union was involved in 2014. The murder investigation did not start until 2016. So unless you are arguing that the nurses union had time machines or amazing detectives working for them, this is not a refutation of my claim (that police unions protect murderers while other public service unions do not).

The answer to my question is: 100% of the unjustified killings before Philando Castile went completely unpunished.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

The union was involved in 2014. The murder investigation did not start until 2016. So unless you are arguing that the nurses union had time machines or amazing detectives working for them, this is not a refutation of my claim (that police unions protect murderers while other public service unions do not).

The union couldn't have known she had intent, but she had been providing the wrong medication to other patients. Why didn't the hospital fire her the second time this happened and what was the union's position on this matter given the inherent risks associated with these apparent mistakes? Why didn't anyone investigate her role on the deaths of patients due to getting excessive insulin into their system?

The answer to my question is: 100% of the unjustified killings before Philando Castile went completely unpunished.

Even accepting that as a fact (I don't think we have enough information about how many cop killings in Minneapolis prior to the mid 2010s were unjustified - it seems people didn't even bother to track the issue back then), wouldn't a rational (yet still psychopathic) cop be a lot more careful about doing these things in 2020 after that precedent?

Looking at the known facts so far, Chauvin's actions seem to be quite irrational: He killed someone using unjustified force under his own employer's ROE all while people were literally filming him and telling him he was being filmed. And if Chauvin and George Floyd knew each other (a distinct possibility since they were workmates in the same shift, as we learned a few days after the fact) the most obvious possibility is that this was an intentional, yet non-premeditated murder - i.e. second degree murder. Of course, further evidence may say otherwise, but I would think that e.g. 911 dispatches are out of the cops' control (the nearest one gets called) which makes premeditation hard to establish given what we know so far.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

So we see that public sector unions do not try to keep people hired after they are known to have murdered people, except police unions.

And we know for a fact that 100% of unjustified cop killings were unpunished before Mr. Castile’s death. we know this because absolutely no cop killings were punished, regardless of justifiability.

He killed someone using a legal choke hold, who was caught with counterfeit money and was apparently intoxicated, in circumstances that were just as “dangerous” as Castile’s (apparently perfectly legal) death, with the full support of the police union, after having killed with impunity before, and after he had not been punished for the other 18 complaints against him, and he was probably racist.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

So we see that public sector unions do not try to keep people hired after they are known to have murdered people, except police unions.

I see you did not address my argument. Why wasn't the nurse fired after administering the wrong medicine to a patient 4 times? What did the union do to correct this behavior?

And we know for a fact that 100% of unjustified cop killings were unpunished before Mr. Castile’s death. we know this because absolutely no cop killings were punished, regardless of justifiability.

Also didn't address my argument, it would still be irrational for Derek Chauvin not to consider all the information available from 2016 onwards.

He killed someone using a legal choke hold, who was caught with counterfeit money and was apparently intoxicated, in circumstances that were just as “dangerous” as Castile’s (apparently perfectly legal) death, with the full support of the police union, after having killed with impunity before, and after he had not been punished for the other 18 complaints against him, and he was probably racist.

And also didn't address that one last argument either. By the way, legal or not, the neck restraint was improperly used under the MPD's regulations, since George Floyd was not actively resisting arrest. As such, even if Chauvin were to be acquitted of all charges and even if George Floyd had not died or faced any kind of permanent damages, Chauvin would have still been rightfully fired.

Will you finally address my arguments?

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

The tangent with the nurse was about whether or not all public sector unions knowingly tried to get murderers rehired, and we see that only police do.

The murderer probably should have thought of those few years, but he had been a cop for 19 years by then, with the vast majority of that time watching people get away with brutality and getting away with it himself.

I doubt any MPD cop was ever punished for improper use of a choke hold.

And if you have any arguments that you feel I ignored, please let me know what they are.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

The tangent with the nurse was about whether or not all public sector unions knowingly tried to get murderers rehired, and we see that only police do.

No, my argument about public sector unions is that they can harm the public interest by making it harder to keep abusive Government officials in check (and it should be noted I was answering a news story you shared yourself that has no examples of rescinded firings resulting from homicides anywhere in the story, you somehow decided to make it about murder even though your own source did not include any examples of that). A great example of this would be to stand by nurses who err on providing potentially deadly medication to patients several times.

Another example would be cops resisting measures that are useful to monitor how they serve their communities such as the compulsory use of bodycams on their end. It would not just address the more extreme cases of unjustified use of deadly force, but would help address all sorts of misconduct as well, from physical or psychological abuse to even corruption depending on the situation. Which is why the police unions have constantly resisted this measure.

And I actually did cite an example of a Medical Association standing by nurses who did commit murder, by poisoning.

The murderer probably should have thought of those few years, but he had been a cop for 19 years by then, with the vast majority of that time watching people get away with brutality and getting away with it himself.

I doubt any MPD cop was ever punished for improper use of a choke hold.

And if you have any arguments that you feel I ignored, please let me know what they are.

That would be quite irrational and reckless on his end, given the events of the last few years. You are basically saying it was rational on his end to forget the last 4 or 5 years, and pretend it's still 2010 or something.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Do you understand the difference between knowingly supporting a murderer and helping an employee without being aware of the employee‘s malice? If you do, then please note that the police unions do the former, while other unions do the latter.

Has any Minneapolis cop ever been punished for using a choke hold incorrectly?

[wat0n]

@wat0n

Do you understand the difference between knowingly supporting a murderer and helping an employee without being aware of the employee‘s malice? If you do, then please note that the police unions do the former, while other unions do the latter.

Has any Minneapolis cop ever been punished for using a choke hold incorrectly?

Do you understand the concept of negligence? How else can you describe standing by a nurse who administers the wrong medication several times over to elderly patients?

The report on this case provides a lot of examples of that. Here's what happened when she was fired from Caressant:

XIII. Wettlaufer’s Grievance and Its Settlement

As noted earlier, Wettlaufer grieved the five-day suspension she received in late January 2014. When her employment was terminated on March 31, 2014, the Collective Agreement gave the ONA 10 days in which to file a grievance. It filed a grievance of the termination that same day. As a result, on March 31, 2014, Wettlaufer had two outstanding grievances in respect of her employment with corporate Caressant Care.

Corporate Caressant Care and the ONA soon began settlement discussions. At the time of those discussions, Ms. Allingham did not know that Wettlaufer had been dismissed from Geraldton District Hospital in 1995 and that a different local of the ONA had grieved that dismissal. She was also unaware that the ONA representatives at Caressant Care (Woodstock) maintained a filing cabinet in the home containing notes, letters, and disciplinary action forms from previous discipline meetings held with Wettlaufer.

In early May 2014, Ms. Allingham and Ms. Sanginesi spoke about the possibility of settling the grievance. Ms. Allingham proposed a monetary payment equivalent to one week per year of service, a reference letter from either Ms. Van Quaethem or Ms. Crombez, and that Wettlaufer be allowed to tender a letter of resignation. She also proposed that Wettlaufer’s personnel file be sealed and that her termination of employment be changed to a resignation for personal reasons.

The Collective Agreement required corporate Caressant Care, on request, to provide a letter setting out Wettlaufer’s employment dates, length of service, and experience. Ms. Sanginesi testified that Ms. Allingham told her that any reference letter would need to speak positively about Wettlaufer’s skills as a registered nurse. Ms. Sanginesi responded that they would not agree to a letter commenting positively about Wettlaufer’s skills as a nurse but indicated she would look into whether Wettlaufer had any strengths that could be mentioned.

Ms. Allingham testified that she would not have dictated the content of the letter but would have asked that a reference letter say something positive about Wettlaufer. She did not recall rejecting the concept of a letter that simply outlined what Wettlaufer’s duties had been.

Ms. Sanginesi believed that she phoned Ms. Van Quaethem to inquire about Wettlaufer’s strengths, and that Ms. Van Quaethem reviewed Wettlaufer’s performance appraisal and listed some potential strengths. Ms. Crombez testified that Ms. Sanginesi called her one day and said, “Helen, if you could say some positive things about Beth, what would they be?” Ms. Crombez stated that Ms. Sanginesi did not indicate why she was asking, but Ms. Crombez gave Ms. Sanginesi information that was ultimately included in the reference letter for Wettlaufer.

On May 22, 2014, Ms. Allingham received a draft letter of reference from Ms. Sanginesi. She testified that she did not suggest or provide any of the contents of the letter of reference and that neither the ONA nor Wettlaufer sought any changes.

Minutes of Settlement were signed by Wettlaufer on June 4, 2014. The Minutes of Settlement included the following:

1. Ms. Wettlaufer hereby voluntarily and irrevocably resigns from her employment with the Employer effective March 31, 2014. The Employer shall amend its personnel file for Wettlaufer to reflect her resignation in place of and in substitution for her termination. The Employee file shall remain sealed, except where as may be required by law.
2. The Employer agrees to make a lump-sum payment of two thousand ($2,000), as damages to Ms. Wettlaufer.
3. The Employer will provide Ms. Wettlaufer with a letter of employment attached hereto as Appendix A.

Pursuant to the Minutes of Settlement, the ONA withdrew the two outstanding grievances. The minutes made it clear that corporate Caressant Care would co-operate with the College if it requested information or documentation related to Wettlaufer.

The draft reference letter was attached to the Minutes of Settlement. On June 11, 2014, corporate Caressant Care paid the $2,000.00 in settlement funds and provided the signed reference letter, which read as follows:

This will confirm that Beth Wettlaufer was employed by Caressant Care Nursing and Retirement Homes at our nursing home in Woodstock, Ontario from June 27, 2007 to March 24, 2014 in the capacity of Registered Nurse.

In this capacity she was responsible for providing nursing care to our elderly residents and for supervising the work of RPN’s and PSW’s.

During her time with us Ms. Wettlaufer proved herself to be a good problem-solver with strong communication skills. She was punctual and enjoyed sharing her knowledge with others.

Ms. Wettlaufer left our employ to pursue other opportunities. We wish her well and are pleased to provide her with this reference.

The reference letter came after Wettlaufer had been hired by Meadow Park Nursing Home (London). Wettlaufer gave this home a copy but did not provide it to any of her subsequent employers.

The ONA is the Ontario Nurses' Association, the nurses union of the Province that includes of course the public sector nurses. This is just what happened during the firing, there were other instances of misconduct that she contested as explained in the first paragraph. Just as importantly, the mere threat of having a controversy with the union deterred Caressant from taking harsher disciplinary action sooner.

I wonder if police unions have similar agreements with PDs when they fire cops for misconduct (including, but not limited to, when it results in the deaths of civilians), and so the firings become resignations and the letters don't say anything about these people's misconduct either. I wonder if this is also why cops can have several complaints of all sorts of things, including assault, and be left unscathed.

But hey, let's move the goalposts from what I said, from what even the NBC's story said, and simply draw an arbitrary line in which unions doing this stuff is bad only when dealing with suspected murder (Chauvin is still awaiting trial the last time I checked). Instead, let's pretend that potentially deadly negligence doesn't matter (except maybe if the cops do it, right PoD? Nevermind if healthcare workers use union agreements to get away with sloppy work with potentially deadly consequences, even more so keeping in mind medical malpractice is estimated to be the third leading cause of death in the US)

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Let me know when you start holding police unions to the same standards to which you hold nurses unions.

It would be very difficult to argue that the MPD police union attained that particular standard of excellence.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

Let me know when you start holding police unions to the same standards to which you hold nurses unions.

It would be very difficult to argue that the MPD police union attained that particular standard of excellence.

I do hold them to the same standards, which is why their power is a problem. And they do have power indeed, it's as easy as seeing how a very similar mechanism in both cases allows past misconduct to be hidden from prospective new employers - be it nursing homes or police departments. It's also why the cops have been able to resist and slow down the use of bodycams as part of their routine work when there are randomized controlled trials showing their use improves their behavior when interacting with the community.

What I don't think is that this reality is evidence of systemic racism. It's simply a case of a trade union running amok, and doing what every worker would want to do - improve on their working conditions and being monitored less. It happens when teachers don't like to have their performance evaluated too. It happens whenever a trade union agreement forces an employer to write a reference letter saying good things about bad workers.

And in the case of policing, it's not easy to fix the problem, but some things can be done. One would be to turn tampering with CCTV and similar cameras, including bodycams worn by the police, a Federal crime. Some states already consider tampering with CCTV cameras a crime, but widening and federalizing this statute to also include police-worn bodycams would help. If it were done to hide a crime, it should also be considered a form of obstruction of justice. And I don't just say this about police-worn bodycams, but in general - which would undermine any complaints about cops being targeted.

[Hindsite]

@wat0n

Let me know when you start holding police unions to the same standards to which you hold nurses unions.

Let me know when you hold the criminals to any standard when being arrested.

[Godstud]

Police are there to arrest criminals and not punish them, or kill them, while doing so.

Criminals do not have to be held to a standard. The police are the ones responsible for standards set by society, not the criminals.

Why does this logic escape you, @Hindsite ?

[Hindsite]

Police are there to arrest criminals and not punish them, or kill them, while doing so.

Criminals do not have to be held to a standard. The police are the ones responsible for standards set by society, not the criminals.

Why does this logic escape you, @Hindsite ?

Maybe it is because I prefer that criminals be punished instead of the police.
HalleluYah

[Godstud]

Criminals are there to be punished by courts, not by violent thugs of police officers.

Police officers who commit crimes are criminals, not police. They need to be treated accordingly. Do you not agree?

Police officers who exceed the public trust that is put into them, are no better than the criminals they claim to be there to arrest.

A police officer who kills someone that they are arresting is breaking that trust put in them by the public, and committing a crime. in short, they stopped being a police officer the moment they over-stepped their mandate.

[Hindsite]

Criminals are there to be punished by courts, not by violent thugs of police officers.

Sometimes the criminals do not get punished by the courts, but are let go to commit more crimes. So I have no objection to the police, who we pay, to administer a little justice to the unruly criminals. I had rather err on the side of the police.

[Godstud]

So I have no objection to the police, who we pay, to administer a little justice to the unruly criminals.

No. The police are not there to administer justice or punishment. That is not their job. Their job is to enforce laws.

If they are to "administer a little justice"(Assault people? Abuse people?), then they are the same as the criminals, since they are breaching their public mandate(mandate: the authority to carry out a policy or course of action).

I had rather err on the side of the police.

Erring on the side of the police is what has put the police officers into this current situation. It's a severe problem because of this attitude, and it's biting police in the ass.

They've exceeded their authority for too long, and it has resulted in abuse and death.