Last week I received a call from Hartford Police Union President Richard Rodriguez late one evening. Now I haven't always been friendly to the Union's stance on some issues, and the call actually caught me off guard.
Rodriguez explained that he was calling to invite me to a seminar that they were offering this week and the Unions Executive Committee had discussed it and wanted me to attend. I agreed to attend.
The seminar was hosted and paid for by the Union and started yesterday at Aetna and is being attended by probably 150-200 police officers from across Connecticut and as far away as Boston PD and Cape Cod. Numerous Hartford Officers are attending as well as a large contingent from the Connecticut State Police and many municipalities. The purpose of the seminar is for police officers that investigate police related shootings.
I am one of four civilians attending and it has definitely been an eye opener. The course outlines the science behind addressing evidence and the questions police shootings usually raise in the community.
I think this is the type of course that should be offered to any community group or residents that want to learn more about what probably is one of the most inflammatory incidents that can take place in any town.
I'll post more on the course itself after we finish the seminar tomorrow, but it definitely points out a major need for some bridge building in our community and probably cities across our country. No one I have talked to has denied that a huge mistrust exists between the police and the community.
The greater question is how to we start building that trust. I think a big part of it needs to start with the Police Department and the way they communicate with the residents. It seems like the Hartford Police Union is taking a major step to be part of the solution and even though there are only a handful of us "civilians" there, it is a start.
During lunch today, myself, Hyacinth Yennie, Stan McCauley, Jackie Maldonado and Richard Rodriguez had a conversation about how to keep the process that the Union started moving forward. Some good ideas came up and we are going to start building on those ideas. Hyacinth and Jackie are also members of the Firearms Review Board.
I think it is important to start the conversation going now and start building the trust, on both sides of the issue. It is going to take the cops to understand residents and the residents need to understand the cops also. The video and materials they have presented have been an eyeopener for me and the others, and I'm already usually pretty supportive of our Police Department.
As an example, most people usually immediately make up their mind in a police shooting that a suspect shot in the back must be an execution. The suspect was running away, the threat no longer existed so why did the cop shoot? I know I'm probably not going to change minds here, but when you see the "science", it is convincing. And this isn't just propaganda to exonerate "rogue" cops, it's documented science and studies.
It is also an eyeopener to the threats Police Officers face daily. With the introduction of dash cams in cruisers and video recording almost constantly everywhere else, documentation is everywhere when a shooting takes place. If a suspect decides to shoot a cop, the officer may not even have the chance to draw his weapon in the time it takes his brain to process the threat to him. The "science" breaks these actions down in to fractions of a second, not even 2 , 3 or 4 seconds but 0.10's of a second.
Like I said, I'll post a lot more after the seminar is done, LAPD shooting
investigators are up tomorrow and it should be interesting.
In the meantime, where is the media? Where is the Police Department communications people? This is something positive being done to better educate police officers and we shouldn't only hear about Hartford cops in trouble. The bridges need to be built and it starts with education like this.
The first two days were presented by instructors from the "Force Science Institute", to get more information click here. The videos on their site are also pretty informative and can explain some things better than I can here
-
16 comments:
Grateful to the cops for what they do day-in-night-out.
Union should be banished.
In this case the Union is stepping up to fill a void not being filled by Hartford, and many other towns.
I wish everyone could be part of this course due to its content and I don't say that lightly. The subject matter is amazing and even the police officers attending seem impressed by the course.
My own judgment, not to say prejudice, is that the mistrust that may exist is primarily from the direction of the public. It is a function of inner city , primarily black, disaffection going back at least to the sixties. At this point it is a severing of the nose to spite the face, but I don't know what the cops can do about it, especially if the civilian muni govt. guys are less than 100% supportive, but perhaps the course you are attending would help (if it were shared at large).
Union should be banished.
Peter, why do you feel the union should be banished?
Opposed to the general idea of public sector unions, not to the cop one in particular. Politicians end up treating the unions as a constituency group, as opposed to an adversary in the management/labor relationship.
But, probably not the time nor place to lodge this perennial complaint. It'd be nice if mistrust between cops and Hartford denizens could be reduced or eliminated, and if the union can help, more power to it.
I agree with you Peter about the politics with unions but over my life have come to the conclusion that unions provide more positives than negatives in this capitalist driven country. Just my opinion from years of seeing non-union workers get treated like crap with no real recourse (i.e. Wal-Mart).
I would hate to imagine how Hartford would treat it's fireman, teachers and cops without a union.
.
Government not-for-profit, therefor, in theory, no possible exploitation of labor (in old Marxist/socialist/progressive economic analysis). Unions not suitable.
But, worse, conflict of interest created. Government should serve taxpayer. But, (some) politicians get support, financial and other, from unions. When it comes to hiring and contract negotiation politicians have an interest in serving the unions. In effect, they buy votes with our money. Pressure for more government at greater cost. In the old days, public sector unions were illegal. Now they are favored by a boat load of state laws and regs.
With respect to the cops, in particular, the situation with Representative Robles is an example of excessive protection of the worker at the expense of the corporation (i.e. us, the municipality, the taxpayers).
No possible exploitation of labor because it's government? You must be kidding me. Just because a government doesn't work for profit doesn't mean they don't have budgets and try to save money.
In fact, it can be argued a government employee has less options then someone in the private sector because government pensions don't transfer to new employers like 401k's can.
I do agree with what you said about unions supporting politicians as being bad.
In general, Marx's critique of capital accumulation is that the human chase after wealth and self-enrichment leads to inhuman consequences. The enrichment of some is at the expense of the immiseration of others, and competition becomes brutal. The basis of it all is the exploitation of the labour effort of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation
-----------------------------------
Public sector worker unions are governed by labor laws and labor boards in each of the 50 states. Northern states typically model their laws and boards after the NLRA and the NLRB. In other states, public workers have no right to establish a union as a legal entity. (About 40% of public employees in the USA do not have the right to organize a legally established union.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States
Reality always trumps theory.
The reality is governments would take advantage of their employees like any other company or agency that works within a budget. They do it already.
governments would take advantage
-------------------------------------
In reality, governments are taking advantage of the taxpayers. They take our money at gunpoint, and set up laws requiring employees to pay union dues at gun point, and, the unions agitate in their own interests with the politicians (against the interest of the taxpayers).
The politicians have made promises of employment and retirement and medical insurance that they will not be able to keep because the taxpayers don't have the money. Just a question of whether the governments can adjust their behavior without crisis, or whether we'll have a meltdown first.
There are some places without public sector unions. I'd bet a six pack that if you look you'd find that those places are in relatively good fiscal situations.
Reality always trumps theory.
------------------------------------
About 40% of public employees in the USA do not have the right to organize a legally established union.
-----------------------------------
The reality is that the taxpayers here in places like Ct. are taken advantage of. Taxes extracted at gunpoint. State laws establishing special interest groups within the government. Said groups take money at gunpoint from employees, return some to politicians in hopes of more jobs, more salary, more benefits requiring more taxes.
But, in any case, it is simply a matter of time before the arrangement implodes. The question is can we downsize in an orderly manner before a crisis, or do we have to wait until we have a meltdown. There is simply not the money to keep the promises the pols have made.
Peter, you wont get an argument out of me that the government is taking advantage of the people.
Politicians now make careers out of being politicians and have completely lost sight of the fact they serve the public, we do not serve them.
Peter, check this video out about a Police Chief who understands the US Constitution and how law enforcement (government) work for the people, not the other way around. He was willing to deploy his cops to stop Federal Agents from an illegal seizer. It's slow at first but get's interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaEKB8pU2Tw&feature=player_embedded
Thanks. I've looked at part 1. Like your man DeMeo a good bit. Doubt he is represented by a union, as he's elected. Electing law enforcement has some attraction for me, but doubt it would be that attractive implemented here in Htfd.
Tenth Amendment....? State sovereignty...? I don't think they teach that in law (enforcement) schools. DeMeo must have picked it up on his own. Pretty good for a guy from New Jersey. God Bless him.
Union benefits are peanuts to the fact government has become massive with too many programs and way too much wasteful spending.
Post a Comment