Hacker News Reader

Comment by pc86 | Hacker News Reader

This isn't a pro-union or anti-union issue. This is a police brutality and police corruption issue.

Normally I'm pro union and workers rights, but police unions are central to the corruption issue.

Police become and stay corrupt because they know they are protected. "Thin Blue Line" and "Blue Wall of Silence" type stuff. Police unions really perpetuate this type of behavior by discouraging actual scrutiny of charges brought against officers. Police unions take a "we'll get you out of this, here's what you say and do" attitude taken towards charges all charges. And if they can't get all the charges outright dropped, the punishment is usually a slap on the wrist.

And don't get me started about "administrative paid leave".

>Police unions take a "we'll get you out of this, here's what you say and do" attitude taken towards charges

AKA 6th Amendment right to counsel?

Unions are not legal counsel, they are groups with common (often political) interests.

So no, not your 6th amendment right.

Not unions per se, but legal advice -- funded by the union -- very much coincides with "we'll get you out of this, here's what you say and do".

I concur with the point about how there's a general problem with police not doing their part to stamp out corruption, but that criticism should never extend to, "they get advice on how to beat charges? Outrageous!"

Edit: Also, IMHO, the general "right to counsel" extends to a defendant's general ability to educate themselves on the appropriate legal defense, even if it's not from their attorney.

You're describing a problem with the prosecutor's office, not the police union.

Problem is: the prosecutor's office depends on the cops to do its job. If it starts prosecuting cops, they will stop cooperating, making its job almost impossible. And cops will outright sabotage inquiries into their own conduct.

Case in point: in the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore, the police had failed to serve search warrants for the officers’ personal cellphones.

> Case in point: in the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore, the police had failed to serve search warrants for the officers’ personal cellphones.

And if they had been Wal-Mart greeters instead of union employees, they would've been fired on the spot.

They should have a separate prosecutor's office for the authorities. Why doesn't I.A. do it?

I am describing a problem where police unions hinder prosecution.

And they hinder prosecution in a way that essentially amounts to blackmail. They threaten that the police force will become less cooperative with the prosecutors office. An office that depends of the force to do it's job. A prosecutor should be able to look into charges against a police force without fear of retribution by said force. But they can't. And police unions are the spokespersons/ringleaders of the entire scheme.

Wouldn't that still be a problem without a union?

> This isn't a pro-union or anti-union issue.

Only if we ignore the fact that the police unions either condone or vigorously defend the "police brutality and police corruption" every single time. Not once[1] have they censured a member for violating rights.

1. To my knowledge. I'd be happy (well, more like moderately surprised) to be informed otherwise.

Except for that even in cases where there are police chiefs/mayors/city councils that want to do something about the issue they are typically hamstrung from removing problem police officers due to union contracts and associated civil service laws

Why does the presence of police corruption make it a non-union issue? Why aren't police unions part of the model of corruption?

Unions work really hard defending that brutality and corruption though, and they have a lot of resources and political weight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com