Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NoMoLerking t1_j02fuky wrote

I mean…okay?

I’m just saying that they really can’t talk about firing him until he’s convicted, and even after that it takes time. If he’s suspended without pay it’s functionally the same.

−6

RevengencerAlf t1_j02hvzk wrote

And I am saying that the reason they can't is because it's a corrupt system full of exclusively corrupt people.

Police are better protected from losing their jobs than virtually any other profession in America.

5

NoMoLerking t1_j02immc wrote

Because they have a strong union and almost nobody else does.

1

RevengencerAlf t1_j02km02 wrote

Yes and every cop who supports that union is a collaborator and accomplice to criminal thugs.

The strength of their unions comes from the public support they get from people worshipping these criminals like they actually add value to society.

11

TheGrandExquisitor t1_j02qlyv wrote

Ummmm.... Who else gets that level of protection?

It isn't most of us.

Don't lick boots. It isn't healthy.

4

NoMoLerking t1_j034ozc wrote

You should take a long look in the mirror and ask why you react so harshly to someone that’s just answering a question factually.

The town really can’t even start the process of firing a cop until they’ve been convicted of a crime or found responsible of repeated misconduct. It’s just how it is. Should it be that way? I don’t know. What’s the alternative? Police hired and fired on the whim of whatever politician won the last election? What about firefighters? Same arrangement? Teachers?

−6

TheGrandExquisitor t1_j0361vk wrote

No. It should not be that way. That is a no-brainer. We have cops literally murdering people in the streets. And when they are needed, like at Uvalde, they don't do shit. Very little accountability.

Also, teachers don't get near the slack cops do. Come on.

7