Printable View
I haven’t seen any mention of this anywhere but the fact that Scientific American magazine endorsed Biden was all over Google and do was an article about a hundred or so “law enforcement officials” backing Biden over Trump.
If I wasn’t an FOP member I wouldn’t know about this myself.
https://youtu.be/nI5m9HuLDwY
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry DD, but I think FOP is part of the problem. As for who you endorse that’s your bidness!Quote:
Originally Posted by DeputyDog
BKB
How are they part of the problem? And what problem are you talking about?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ummm, I was kind'a wondering the same thing myownfineself. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by DeputyDog
Well, I figured since Trump is the self styled law and order candidate is why the FOP supported him.
I’m all for anyone who needs labor representation should have it. But all I’ve ever seen FOP do here is protect bad cops. An old classmate of mine was the president of the Tulsa FOP until he retired and that’s pretty much was all he did. Now they even present ‘evidence’ in the Kenosha case on TV with a press conference.
I am done telling people they are wrong so this is just my belief, but I think FOP should stick with labor issues and let justice issues play out like everyone else’s. As for political endorsements all unions do it.
BKb
Ok, I follow you now. As my history with this site will prove, I am almost 100% anti-union and I find it interesting the FOP does not include the word "Union" in their name when it's really what they are.
I've only had personal experience with two unions in my lifetime ... both were bad experiences. At least, from the outside, looking in. If you're a fuck-up, unions are "good" (for you) due to the protections they provide you. Otherwise, they suck big weenies IMHO and I have nothing good to say about them. I've always been a firm believer in ... "if you don't like your job, find one you DO like" ... don't have the union strong-arm your employer to become what YOU want them to be.
I think unions were necessary and brought on positive changes in the late 1800's and early 1900's, but laws have been enacted since that time to make unions obsolete IMO. There are checks and balances in "most" companies that do not require union membership to participate in. In fact, I honestly believe many labor "problems" are actually instigated by unions, just to provide justification for their necessity. They drive a wedge between employees and management just so they can step in and show their members that the union is a benefit to them when they straighten the mess out.
I may be painting with a broad brush here, but just the word "union" usually cranks my blood pressure up a few notches.
As for endorsements? Who cares? They can pressure their members to vote a certain way, but there's no way they can actually control the way anybody votes. It means nothing really other than giving a candidate some measure of validity in the public eye.
The governmental entity that I work for does not recognize any entity for collective bargaining so I get no benefit from the FOP in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryBobPosthole
They do provide me with legal representation if needed not only for criminal and civil defense in on duty situations as well as in employment issues. I don’t look at it as protecting the “bad cops” because no one hates bad cops worse than good cops, but more as ensuring due process and not prosecution in the court of public opinion. Which is exactly why they are speaking out on the Kenosha incident.
The FOP does a good job, in my opinion, in representing the LE position in legislative matters. For example legislation that provides for grants that allow police agencies to provide body armor to their officers. Believe it or not, there are many agencies in this country that would require officers to provide their own body armor without these grants and many other agencies would not replace old outdated equipment either.
They also pushed for the bill that allowed LEO’s to carry anywhere in the US. Prior to that officers who worked in one jurisdiction were not allowed to carry in neighboring jurisdictions off duty. For example an officer works for NYPD or Chicago PD but lives in a neighboring suburb that doesn’t allow concealed carry.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry! Posted this on the wrong thread.
Thumper, I think its fine if the police need or want outside representation for their salary and benefits. The sticky wicket with FOP, and TBH with LE in general, is what is the difference between a disciplinary issue and when charges should be filed. We had a policeman here that beat up a suspect at the police station. Captured of course totally on video. The city fired him. The FOP intervened and an arbitrator was assigned. The city had to reinstate him and pay him backpay. No assault charges were ever filed. Two assaults later, the last one a beating of a handcuffed suspect with a shotgun, and the city was finally able to make its firing of him stick. Its a matter of luck he didn’t kill somebody.
Cops do need special liability protection just because of the nature of their jobs. I just don’t know why that level of protection from prosecution from their union is necessary. Isn’t there another way?
BKB