Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

F_T_N_32 t1_irkax6m wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#60,240)

The nypd patrol guide forbids employees from associating with groups that promote “hatred, oppression, or prejudice based on race, religion, gender, gender identity/expression, sexual orientation, or disability.” The department’s rules also prohibit employees from associating with groups or people who are believed to be involved in criminal activity.

3

Gozillasbday t1_irkg754 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#60,240)

Do you know what Oath Keepers are? Do you understand why this would be an issue for a member of the NYPD?

Also the BLM movement is just that a movement. There is an organization, but the movement itself is not an organization with members.

Edit: This is a 0 karma 6 year old account very suspect.

52

aramova t1_irklmng wrote

Some of those who work forces...

56

everybodydressing t1_irknj2k wrote

This is why when I see the Nicole Neam-whatever ad that takes the main position that cops don’t like Max Rose, I think—“You must be doing something right, Max Rose!”

42

thinkmatt t1_irko9e4 wrote

Defund the police was right

38

Know_TheTruth656 t1_irl0wy3 wrote

The Police have a sordid past that includes the role of muscle for Jim Crow the Klan, and The Police since the early part of the 20th Century. The two police departments that I worked for, required personnel to live within a 10 mile radius of their precincts, North, South, East and West. The theory was If the Police learned the culture and habits of a group of people, their handling of emergencies would be different. That they would deescalate before escalating situations. Some communities have done their review and research of mitigating factors and have made an attempt to re-train and institute rules of accountability. Instead of baning books that tell of experiences of victims, an honest review and reveal of the truths should be told and shared with all who truly care.

11

Otherwise_Piccolo206 t1_irl78oq wrote

Wait till they find out about the Knights of Columbus membership among the ranks. I hear some of these fucking cops are even registered Republicans. How dare they.

−27

TeamMisha t1_irlfl7a wrote

> As this is a personnel matter, the findings are confidential

Idk public employees allegedly being in traitorous antigovernmental groups seems like it maybe ought to be public knowledge in terms of what was discovered

24

sexychineseguy t1_irlv26t wrote

Not surprising.

I could have a list of "Secret Bad People Memberships" and leak it anonymously.

And it'll contain Biden's name. Does that mean Biden should lose his job?

−20

user_joined_just_now t1_irlzxg2 wrote

Replying to thinkmatt (#60,854)

After a certain point, defunding was promoted as a way to redirect certain things that fell under police enforcement to other specialized agencies, not as a punitive measure against corruption. At least, that's what was claimed.

4

_aware t1_irm05mk wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#61,870)

>oath keepers

"The organization was subpoenaed by the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack in November 2021. Eleven members of the organization, including its founder and leader Stewart Rhodes, were indicted for seditious conspiracy in January 2022.[25] By late April 2022, 2 of those 11 indicted Oath Keepers had pled guilty to seditious conspiracy,[26] and another member who had not been named in the initial indictment pled guilty to the same charges on May 4, 2022.[27]"

All you really need to know

9

nim_opet t1_irm4fv2 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#61,426)

If you are a member of a criminal organization and that organization commits crimes and you know about them, or Should know about them, then you are abetting if not conspiring or worse

12

Stock-Performance-96 t1_irmx6dr wrote

I'd you don't like them then don't call them when you really need them see how that works out for you

−15

PatrickMaloney1 t1_irn80v5 wrote

This is my frustration with the NYPD. They want the public’s respect and claim that we have no way of understanding the reality of being a cop on these streets. I’m sure to a certain extent that is true.

But there is nothing about a cop’s day to day that makes a tolerance for domestic terrorism acceptable. This is not a bad apple issue. This is the definition of institutional rot.

22

Westiemom666 t1_irnb06i wrote

Replying to everybodydressing (#60,832)

Yep they assume everyone thinks boot licking is a virtue. Plus, the Lucy van Pelt impersonator voted against women's choice, and for overturning the election. Max needs to pull that football away from her.

2

0ctologist t1_irnf9zn wrote

Replying to sexychineseguy (#64,444)

If you need to know why the hacker who found the list has to remain anonymous, google Frank Serpico.

Other than bootlicking, do you have a reason not to trust Gothamist? I have found their journalism to be very reliable.

2

sexychineseguy t1_irngtf6 wrote

Replying to 0ctologist (#64,517)

> Do you have a reason not to trust Gothamist?

I'm not distrusting Gothamist. Gothamist is saying these people were on the a list given anonymously. I believe that's true until otherwise proven.

However I have no clue whether the list itself is real or not. Nobody should have adverse effects due to being listed on an unconfirmed list.

If you were listed on a list of nazi members someone put out anonymously, does that make you a nazi?

−3

0ctologist t1_irnhpap wrote

Replying to sexychineseguy (#64,581)

I don’t think you understand how anonymous sources work. It’s not like they get a phone call from a random pay phone and then publish what that person says as gospel. Gothamist knows who the hacker is and what their credentials are, but they don’t release that info to protect that person’s identity. I have no reason to believe that Gothamist didn’t properly vet their source, so I believe this story.

4

Debz227 t1_irnm3e9 wrote

It’s a shame in this day & age this bullshit goes on

2

matt_may t1_iro215h wrote

Can a lawyer weigh in on this? Pretty sure it’s a 1st Amendment issue. Just being a member of a group don’t think can be used to fire someone. Case law on this go back to the Red scare of the 1950’s.

Not a defense of alt-right organizations, etc.

2

Know_TheTruth656 t1_iro9q9u wrote

Replying to user_joined_just_now (#62,327)

The phrase DEFUND THE POLICE dates back to the 60s. At least,,that's when it became a rallying cry to draw attention to police tactics that became too dangerous - often ending in the death of too many citizens who were using their right to protest. If you have a minute, I borrowed this from an article in Politico;

"But the demands to abolish the police didn’t spring from nowhere — they have deep roots among a group of activists and academics who have been arguing for years that merely reforming a system they see as fundamentally broken is futile: To truly address the unfair way police departments treat Black and Latino communities, they say, you need to tear down the entire edifice and start over."

Of course, tearing down a physical edifice would not bring about the change needed. Consider this - often heard practice of Black women during childbirth, praying the baby is NOT A BOY. Or this, the book written by Prof. Andrew Hacker of Queens College in NY; "Two Nations, Black and White, Separate, Hostile and Unequal." Among the words is the story of a survey of 100 White College Students, who were presented with the opportunity to be paid to be Black for 1 week. Not one white student accepted the offer.

We can discuss the many reasons why but, the amount of money offered these NYC College Students, attending a City University, seemed like an easy task. The children born "Colored," don't have a choice. If they did, what do you think their response would be, and you know why. Imagine the white kid, anxious to join the Police Force. How do you think he would handle situations in the Field? What does it depend on? His upbringing or training?

The TALK is necessary.

1

Obstinate_Turnip t1_iroaah5 wrote

I would be surprised if the list's origin in "membership rolls obtained by an anonymous hacker," isn't a HUGE reason for this. Is this "evidence" really so different from a list of D.C. pizzerias engaged in child-sex rings for Hilary Clinton obtained from Q-Anon?

−1

wherearemypaaants t1_irodpgx wrote

Replying to matt_may (#65,372)

Belonging to a hate group isn’t a political affiliation and therefore not a protected class. No one has a constitutional right to be a nazi and work a government job. You can be forced to pick one or the other.

4

matt_may t1_irolq68 wrote

Replying to wherearemypaaants (#65,701)

Private employers sure but government employees have a lot more rights when it comes to speech/employment. There is a whole body of cases on this dating back to the then Communist Party “hate group”

3

rainzer t1_irq5r2d wrote

Replying to matt_may (#65,933)

> but government employees have a lot more rights

Not sure where you came up with this one.

Let me quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for you.

>“The petitioner (a police officer) may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman."

2

matt_may t1_irqair9 wrote

Replying to rainzer (#68,310)

There is a bunch of case law on this that makes it hard to fire government employees for not on the job political speech. The SCOTUS weighed in 2006, much later than Holmes, in the "Garcetti" Ruling. There’s a 3 part test. None of that exists for private employment

2

Coyote_FIVEOH t1_is6gt2h wrote

Replying to mission17 (#91,985)

Sure. A Nazi is a member or supporter of the defunct German Nationalist Socialist party. The party believed in a government structure where industry was under direct control of a democratically elected government with law enforced by a national police force. Gun Control was also a high ticket item.

The Oath Keepers believe in quite possibly every single opposite of all those things. They believe in full rights to gun ownership, a free industry that’s unobstructed by unconstitutional law, and law enforcement that is localized rather than nationalized. The Oath Keepers are mainly members of the military and law enforcement who believe in individual freedom and liberty protected by the constitution and bill of rights, where their oath is kept.

0

mission17 t1_is6pjq1 wrote

Replying to Coyote_FIVEOH (#95,264)

Members of the Oath Keeper committed sedition against the United States based on a right-wing conspiracy and false allegations of mass election fraud. The Oath Keepers certainly do not believe in the democratic ideals embodied by the United States Constitution as much as they may purport to.

1