Yeah, what the hell does "union thuggery" mean in 2011? :rolleyes:
Printable View
Yeah, what the hell does "union thuggery" mean in 2011? :rolleyes:
Which is why I asked about trooper donation decals. Same level of "with us or we'll get you" conspiracy nuttiness.
No, I've been threatened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Yes we have laws... to prevent it. But as it is he said-he said...not much a cop (who may be more sympathetic to the union guy being one himself) can really do is there?
LOL, that is more of, you buy this and you may get a break on the next ticket...:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
In reality? If so, we have laws against threatening people, so perhaps you should look into that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
We also have laws to punish people.Quote:
Yes we have laws... to prevent it.
This is why you get a lawyer or someone else who can do something about it, or if the cop won't, a cop who will. Or if none will, someone who will investigate and deal with a precinct of cops who won't do their job. See above though for why a cop or someone else in the legal system can help you.Quote:
But as it is he said-he said...not much a cop (who may be more sympathetic to the union guy being one himself) can really do is there?
When did you turn into Loki and this fairy tale world? Again, in a he said he said, what do you really think is going to happen?
Fairy tale world? The one where I point out we have laws to deal with the problems you address? Or are they threatening you with Magic Missile? Also if the law or legal system is incapable of dealing with a person who makes threats or follows through with them, I'm uncertain how them being part of a union would figure into this, or how unions would be the biggest problem in this circumstance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
When in doubt, blame teh unions.
Why would you donate to troopers? Or is there a specific cause they panhandle for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Pretty sure we don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
I should have probably been clearer, we have laws or court precedents for dealing with people who physically threaten harm to others. Mentioning that you've been threatened to law enforcement can also help your case after the threat is carried out.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You don't? We do.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The problem is evidence. I have received death threats before, I report them to the Police and its difficult to prove but they'll talk to the person I said gave the threat and then tell me if they come near me again to call 999.
And those laws would pass over the opposition of said unions, which tend to do this in cities in which their party of preference is in power?Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Was there something confusing about the part where I stated that "We should already have laws" and that "people are subject to criminal laws." ? What occurrence can you think of where criminal law would not be adequate in dealing with what a rational person would consider thuggery? If your argument is that elected officials may not apply these already existing laws or enforce them, then you're dealing with a problem that is not unions, but corruption in the legal system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That doesn't identify the source of the corruption. If that source is also unions, as it is with the California Prison Guard's Union. . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
When a police officer or firefighter doesn't work as efficiently as they could due to a contract dispute, that is thuggery. They are holding their power over people's lives and property hostage to their contract squabbles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
I can't imagine how much fun it would be to give you an Amerikan tour. Even just a day tour of something totally unrelated to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
As would be the case if I visited the People's Republic of Sweedun, the most interesting parts could be the areas where nothing explodes.
Down here its the sheriffs department (I mixed them up for a sec), and they run the youth ranches. Donations over a certain amount net you a car decal in the shape of a badge that people complain about because they think it tells the sheriffs who and who not to harrass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgrrl
While I think it's silly, i don't see how a boycott is suddenly thuggery. Lots of groups call for lots of boycotts all the time.
In their stupidity and hubris, a lot of the U.S. diplomatic/foreign interests officials recommended to Kennedy many actions and I suppose tours of things that would bolster Kekkonen's "faith in democracy and free trade". I find the parallels to your line over there amusing and apt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
...how does this disqualify what I stated about going up the chain of authority and using our existing laws to have the issue dealt with?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Fire them if you don't like how they are doing their job. Just make sure you can find replacements...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
...also it wouldn't make much sense from the perspective of police officers or firefighters to dick over people they should want supporting them (the citizens)...
Over here police aren't allowed to have actions that infringe the general safety.
What do you think of punctuality actions, dread? E.g. the border control performing 100% controls? Is that also thuggery if a union calls for it? After all, that's just doing their job.
That would be the federal prosecutor trying to conduct a RICO investigation who was driven off by death threats, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Does the FBI not exist? Do we not have laws for people who threaten federal officials with death for doing their jobs? Do we not have punishments for breaking those laws? Do we not have people who are not those police officers and firefighters to enforce both the laws and the punishments? We do, don't we...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
...please, for sanity's sake stop with this "Oh, but what if?" crap. What if a meteor falls from the sky crushing him? Hmm...? We have laws in place for criminal activity, they can be equally applied to people who are clowns, people who work as fry cooks, people who are businessmen, and people who are in unions, or people who are firefighters or police officers. Thats what they are there for.
That was not a "what if" that was a "this happened." And the California Prison Guard's Union has not been investigated since. The people who could go after it know that it has too much political cover, while they'll be left twisting in the wind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Again, problem with the legal system not being able to deal with criminal activity. Would you consider it rational if we were having a debate about possibly getting rid of bankers because some of them engage in criminal activity, have gotten away with criminal activity, and that we need laws specifically written to ensure bankers don't steal money because our laws regarding theft don't apparently cover them?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Or to put it a much more simpler way: We have this thing called tape. Its really fucking great at joining two things together. If you ask someone to tape two things together, and later they aren't, at which point you discover that the person tasked with taping them together never did so, its not the tapes fucking fault they aren't taped together, its the person whose job it was to do so. Likewise we have laws for dealing with the situations you've mentioned. Its not the fault of the law if no one applies it, its the fault of whomever was supposed to do so. Replace them, not the laws. Doing otherwise makes about as much sense and would likely have as much of an affect as giving the guy in the first situation glue.
Bringing us full-cricle to your false claim that the legal system is set up to punitively respond to threats, which is what drew me back into this discussion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Except we all know it's almost impossible to fire them. The police unions are self-serving and self-interested. They think their services are always worth more than they are being paid; they don't think they are dicking-over people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
I know very little about him, but he said that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Well, it's done well for you so far, nyet? I often forget that you've only had about 90 years of democratic kapitalism under your belts. And some might argue that not much of that 90 years was especially democratic or kapitalist.
I said we should have laws with to deal with this, and that if there is no one capable of dealing with this in the legal system then we have bigger problems than unions. To be clearer, when referring to laws I mean laws and legal precedents, and when stating "legal system" mean people in it, like police officers, lawyers, judges, juries, etc. Since this is not Mexico we're talking about, and the US is a functioning first world country, we should already have the laws in place, and enough uncorrupt people in the legal system to be able to deal with union members acting in a criminal manner...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
We have laws against theft, murder, assault, arson, property damage, kidnapping, hostage taking, etc. and legal precedents for dealing with death threats, threats of property damage, etc., so them being in a union or not shouldn't matter. It wouldn't be any different than any other group of people doing the same exact things...
Threats aren't action and our legal system *both criminal and civil* is almost entirely reactive. The response to threats is negligible. Making threats will not look at all good on the person making them if something actually happens, but that rarely provides much assurance to those being threatened. Harm will have already been inflicted on them because, again, our legal system is not geared for preventative measures. It operates under the assumption that reactionary responses will deter undesired behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
It's as if you didn't even read what I said. But no, we have not been very capitalist until recently. More democratic than the U.S., but whether that's benefited anyone I can't say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Again I'm surprised if this is the case. Are you saying that making death threats is entirely allowed free speech? That if there was sufficient evidence nothing would happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Again I think the problem is one of evidence, more than law. Most thugs are smart enough not to get caught.