Debate....Politely
Numerous persons have posted this in regard to the Saturday post about the downtown mass arrest:
- Direct for the mandatory e-learning just posted
First amendment rights Refresher e-learning training uploaded 4 days ago
First amendment rights G02-02
Members will not:
Arrest any persons engaged in First Amendment conduct for minor or petty offenses, including traffic or business offenses, or those that pose no immediate threat to the safety of the community, or others, or of causing property damage
See what we mean about the Department being unable to create an airtight comprehensive order that protects the Rights of protestors, the Rights of society to operate and the Rights of coppers not having to sit in Federal Court?
See what we mean about lawyers playing in these gray areas?
You will.
Labels: from the comments
posted by SCC at 12:05 AM
63 Comments:
I’m confused by how this is written. Are we going to arrest people for property damage?
I completed that elearning and couldn’t believe what I was reading. So when any protestor starts breaking windows and damaging cars right in front of me, it appears that if I take any action I will be getting fired for disobeying department directives. Per the directive, I am going to stand there and let it happen and do absolutely nothing for fear of losing my job.
Can this be right? The brass wants us to do nothing when we see people breaking shit in front of us?
All this stuff about being sued is making me want to retire. How about we have a compromise with the insurance for the people who have 29 years in but not 55 years old yet? What does everyone think about this one? My proposal is how about if you work the 29 years but aren’t 55 you can retire without the insurance and on your 55th birthday you’ll be eligible for it. This way if you retire at say 53 years old you’d only have to pay out of pocket for the insurance for two years. It seems to make sense to me but I’d like to hear what everyone else thinks?
Let protesters do whatever they want during the DNC. Just protect your fellow officers. That’s it.
Original commenter here. I told you. Yet you morons with little to no time on aren’t smart enough to figure out that anything and everything on this job - ESPECIALLY in today’s climate - is not to be taken at face value. Self Preservation is the ONLY thing that matters. The sooner you learn to play the game properly, the better. Now all you hard ons convinced you’re gonna land on your feet because “it’s all on BWC and we articulated how they’d come back if we didn’t lock them up” can articulate to little Johnny and Susie that they’ll be going to CPS now cuz daddy made a boo-boo at work and can’t afford St. Whoever’s tuition. Newsflash … us dinosaurs didn’t last 30+ in this circus because we DON’T know how to handle business. Try to pay more attention moving forward. You may just learn a thing or two from your older, wiser coworkers.
Property damage is legal when protesting. Unbelievable! The destruction of the city is just about complete.
There will never be a concrete order on 1st Amendment actions. All we can do is be the best we can be, learn and know the law, know the Constitution and act in good faith. This is applicable to every arrest that is made. I see arrests all the time with the only justification that it was "on signed complaints." "Signed complaints " is not probable cause. I think the major issue is that many officers and supervisors don't understand law. Another problem is that the trial lawyers union are huge donors to the Democrat Party, which is why tort reform will never happen and why "qualified immunity" should never go away, despite all the calls from the Left and libertarians for it to end. Now, protests, and all other 1st Amendment issues fall under the "time, place and manner" restrictions. Nothing is absolute. I wasn't there, but lawfully, those officers were correct in arresting those protesters. If everything I've heard is correct, it was legal, lawful and needed. I agree with the "gray" area, especially in today's world, but there are times where law enforcement has to happen. If it happened in 2020, we wouldn't have gone through what we went through with the BLM riots. This post has nothing to do with proactive policing as I'm a supervisor, with time on the job, who does not preach that to the watch. This is simply saying that we're always gonna be judged based on what we do. Whether that is just responding to calls, being proactive, or put in a place where we have to respond immediately to a protest. Any one of those can land you in court. Just be able to articulate what you did, etc.
Protesters can do what they wish. As long as they are not dragging people out of their cars and beating them; or burning down the buildings, everything is OK.
So you can't arrest anyone for property damage? Lovely.
Can we just let the Korean grocers or the Latin Kings handle it? They don't seem to have to worry about "Use of Force"
Muddy waters are where the shysters wallow
So protesters are protected to destroy property?? SMH
Property damage legalized! Good, I hope every affluent , white , democrat voter has their property destroyed.
The order you referenced also states in section IX-Crowd Dispersal Orders During First Amendment Assemblies:
E-2. After the insuance of a dispersal order, nothing in this Directive restricts the ability of Department members to take appropriate enforcement action against any member of the public who:
c. Fails to comply with dispersal order after being given the opportunity to do so.
Immediately threat are the keywords. Protesters can’t be arrested because they were blocking the sidewalk yesterday. It would have to be the same day, at the time of offense and after numerous recorded lawful orders to cease. What’s so hard about that?
Yep. Sitting and chanting hardly qualifies as “an immediate threat to the safety of the community”.
Inconveniencing? Yes.
Ignorant? You bet.
Arrestable offense? Only when morons with gold stars seem to think so.
As many have already mentioned in the prior thread… you are expendable. You will be scape goated and left to twist in the wind when the shit hits the fan.
And the department just gave you a front row seat as to how they are washing their hands of you.
The smart ones amongst you will do this E learning without using the cheat sheets floating around to pass the post test.
Bingo but yet we have an over abundance of pension grabbing gold star exempt ranks that are clueless! Larry "come on man," what are you and "wheres Fred" hiding what you going to do about this?
Wait a minute, (not a cop here), does that mean if they are impeding traffic you are not suppose to arrest them? And if they are breaking store windows or spraying graffiti you are not suppose to arrest them?
Have fun at the DNC.
SMH
Sounds to me like the cops aren’t needed at these demonstrations. So the department gives these folks room to destroy? Can’t enforce laws to protect property. Sounds to me if the next time the folks want to loot a store all they have to do is chant BLM and the cops will unable to arrest them for property crimes.
can't arrest even if they are causing property damage?
More pandering to the weirdos.
Arrest any persons engaged in First Amendment conduct for minor or petty offenses, including traffic or business offenses, or those that pose no immediate threat to the safety of the community, or others, or of causing property damage.
So they can destroy my business, steal my property, create havoc among my customers, and just walk away. Why isn't every arrest considered a 1st Amendment investigation.
Buncha sphincters just puckered to “shutter closed” position. Typical reactive CPD. First Amendment elearning magically appears a day or two after the clowns “in charge” step on their dicks (and jam up a bunch of POs) for violating the civil rights of peaceful protesters. Enjoy your punitive damages, fools.
Anonymous said...
All this stuff about being sued is making me want to retire. How about we have a compromise with the insurance for the people who have 29 years in but not 55 years old yet? What does everyone think about this one? My proposal is how about if you work the 29 years but aren’t 55 you can retire without the insurance and on your 55th birthday you’ll be eligible for it. This way if you retire at say 53 years old you’d only have to pay out of pocket for the insurance for two years. It seems to make sense to me but I’d like to hear what everyone else thinks?
11/20/2023 12:20:00 AM
I think this is one of the best ideas I’ve read on this blog. I will fall into this category also and I’m getting penalized for coming on at an early age. Many of my colleagues that were in my academy class have already retired with full medical benefits. I’m still here, stuck because of the insurance. This is something the FOP should act on!
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Protesters can do what they wish. As long as they are not dragging people out of their cars and beating them; or burning down the buildings, everything is OK.
11/20/2023 02:24:00 AM
No, you’re wrong! They can burn down the buildings according to our general orders. Property destruction is allowed.
Does this include marching on the dan ryan expressway or lake shore drive.
I think this is yet another example of a horribly written GO. I believe they were trying to say that you will not arrest them *unless* they are an immediate threat or they’re causing property damage. I think. But, now a days, I don’t know with this crazy ass department. Until they clarify, I guess we’re supposed to let them damage property in fear of going against our general orders? And why do they have to make these things so fucking hard to read and understand? Just plainly state what u want. Officers will not arrest anyone for property damage while exercising their first amendment rights. Is that so hard.
This order/directive is written very poorly. It means that if they "pose no immediate threat of causing property damage."
If they are actually damaging property, then yes, they are subject to arrest.
The whole thing sounds like the police are being baited. Why are they being sent there in the first place? Where is the line drawn on how much property can be damaged?
If the police have to be there at least put up bleachers for them to sit and watch the shit show.
Maybe the city can put together a committee to judge which group can do the most damage without braking the law and give them some type of 1st amendment award to be announced by the mayor’s office.
1968 Chicago DNC revisited
Gee we hope the occupy police district stations and city parks by illegal immigrants are cleared out by then
California Democrat Convention Shut Down By Pro-Palestine Protesters
The California Democratic Party shut down its convention on Saturday after thousands of demonstrators mobbed the venue, staging a sit-in in the lobby, heckling speakers, blocking roads and condemning "Genocide Joe" Biden, all in an effort to urge party leaders to support a ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza war.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/california-democratic-convention-shut-down-ceasefire-demonstrators
Anonymous said...
All this stuff about being sued is making me want to retire. How about we have a compromise with the insurance for the people who have 29 years in but not 55 years old yet? What does everyone think about this one? My proposal is how about if you work the 29 years but aren’t 55 you can retire without the insurance and on your 55th birthday you’ll be eligible for it. This way if you retire at say 53 years old you’d only have to pay out of pocket for the insurance for two years. It seems to make sense to me but I’d like to hear what everyone else thinks?
11/20/2023 12:20:00 AM
You keep posting this put in the basket of "things that will never happen," along with residency!!
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/12/20/23519765/unjustified-arrest-exposed-failures-in-cpd-response-to-unrest-george-floyd-killing
This Detective took a hit for doing as the bosses told her to do during a mass arrest situation
Not an officer.
But if they're allowed to destroy property why can't whoever owns the property sue the protesters, organizers of protest...? Regular citizens have no power in whatever it is they're protesting against.
With the millions these organizations raise, the politicians and celebrities they have supporting and organizing them, they certainly can afford it.
I will just hit IOD during the first hours of DNC ..... I will read the blog from my boat.
Interesting read. When things don't follow the democratic narrative --criminal dies while resisting arrest-- the political class does not hesitate to throw the police under the "bus." No more is this evident then in Minneapolis after the death of criminal Floyd George. The political class in a panic over the riots needed a to deflect the blame. They found some officers. Now long prison terms while George is honored as a saint. Moral of the story: You're on your own in a Democratic city if things go against their narrative.
https://nypost.com/2023/11/20/opinion/real-truth-aid-the-floyd-lies/
When people bring up residency, everyone chimes in with the “STFU, you knew were required to live in the city when you took the job, leave it alone and move on”.
So on that same line of thinking, all you guys who took the job at 21, and have done 29 years but aren’t 55 yet and can’t go “STFU and let it go”. We’re tired of hearing you complain, that’s what it is. It’s a small percentage of officers, and the only ones who feel sorry for you guys are the others in the same situation.
That situation MIGHT apply to 5% of the department, and less going forward. It’s a non-issue. Sorry Charlie.
Somebody will blast them away!
They will still order pro -American or pro- life protesters beaten with truncheons and turned over to Feds for internment in the Gulag.
Let the mother fucker burn who gives a fuck everything is insured and your rates will skyrocket just like everything else
12:45AM…. There will be no organized rioting during the DNC. None of that stuff is spontaneous. It’s all directed to further regime goals as in 2020. They are going to anoint Obama’s “wife” as the candidate and they are going to hail the bliss of the holy, intersectional, rainbow city of Chiraq. The attacks on civilization will be in Milwaukee at the RNC. They will cause chaos to warn the normies not to vote for Trump.
Go break some squad car windows, we can’t stop you.
Why don’t they just repeal all of the laws?
Protesters can do what they wish. As long as they are not dragging people out of their cars and beating them; or burning down the buildings, everything is OK.
Sure is.
Until they get too close to me.
Chalkie
The order you referenced also states in section IX-Crowd Dispersal Orders During First Amendment Assemblies:
E-2. After the insuance of a dispersal order, nothing in this Directive restricts the ability of Department members to take appropriate enforcement action against any member of the public who:
c. Fails to comply with dispersal order after being given the opportunity to do so.
11/20/2023 06:36:00 AM
And you'll hang your ass on that?
Go for it.
The idea about leaving before 55 and having it kick in at 55 is fair and should’ve went through years ago! I’m betting something will be done about this unfortunate situation soon.
GO2-02 is ass wipe. Give them nothing but basic services. You know who was elected and you know who they selected to run city departments. The elected and selected own this problem. Wherever you go socialism is the same. Murder City is no different. Protect yourself and your partner, the rest are on their own. If the opportunity presents itself regarding dis-satisfaction with police services/crime put the blame where it belongs - Brandy Johnson.
Anonymous said...
All this stuff about being sued is making me want to retire. How about we have a compromise with the insurance for the people who have 29 years in but not 55 years old yet? What does everyone think about this one? My proposal is how about if you work the 29 years but aren’t 55 you can retire without the insurance and on your 55th birthday you’ll be eligible for it. This way if you retire at say 53 years old you’d only have to pay out of pocket for the insurance for two years. It seems to make sense to me but I’d like to hear what everyone else thinks?
11/20/2023 12:20:00 AM
I think this is one of the best ideas I’ve read on this blog. I will fall into this category also and I’m getting penalized for coming on at an early age. Many of my colleagues that were in my academy class have already retired with full medical benefits. I’m still here, stuck because of the insurance. This is something the FOP should act on!
I agree. This is definitely a nice option. Especially if you can go on your spouse’s insurance.. and once you hit 55 neither you or your wife don’t have to work for medical insurance. Sounds reasonable…… but I feel the department’s priority is hiring and retaining….. unfortunately
Anonymous said...
All this stuff about being sued is making me want to retire. How about we have a compromise with the insurance for the people who have 29 years in but not 55 years old yet? What does everyone think about this one? My proposal is how about if you work the 29 years but aren’t 55 you can retire without the insurance and on your 55th birthday you’ll be eligible for it. This way if you retire at say 53 years old you’d only have to pay out of pocket for the insurance for two years. It seems to make sense to me but I’d like to hear what everyone else thinks?
11/20/2023 12:20:00 AM
Only if it applies to people who are maxed out under 55.
For the sake of argument, lets say I am blocking a construction site driveway with a group of people. We are on the sidewalk with our protest signs. Lets also say for the sake of argument that the construction site is for a migrant camp. Can I be lawfully ordered to leave or be arrest? I am just on the sidewalk blocking traffic.
Another reason to defund the hands tied “do nothing but observe” CPD.
So how long before people start moving out l because property damage caused in a civil disturbance is not covered.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
All this stuff about being sued is making me want to retire. How about we have a compromise with the insurance for the people who have 29 years in but not 55 years old yet? What does everyone think about this one? My proposal is how about if you work the 29 years but aren’t 55 you can retire without the insurance and on your 55th birthday you’ll be eligible for it. This way if you retire at say 53 years old you’d only have to pay out of pocket for the insurance for two years. It seems to make sense to me but I’d like to hear what everyone else thinks?
11/20/2023 12:20:00 AM
I think this is one of the best ideas I’ve read on this blog. I will fall into this category also and I’m getting penalized for coming on at an early age. Many of my colleagues that were in my academy class have already retired with full medical benefits. I’m still here, stuck because of the insurance. This is something the FOP should act on!
11/20/2023 08:17:00 AM
_________________________
Sorry junior the rules you came on the job are still in force. FOP got us wage compression (30year step raise gone) where everyone jumped up a step and pension was the 29 and a day instead of 32 years and a day. The pension took a 6% hit. Now FOP got the COLA bill and what is the hit on the pension plan? Another 5%?? Grow up! You hair gel, tattooed, jeep owners got every thing handed to you on a silver plater. Let's get rid of ordinary disability for people get hurt away from the job. You want insurance? Get get your own insurance if you get hurt doing stupid shit and keep the pension plan from going under with all the sons and daughters of supervisors all making merit promotions. All that hair gel rotted your brain.
To the clown who keeps posting about free insurance under 55, it is not going to happen, you can retire get another job and get that insurance 55 and out is a great benefit,pension at 29 not 32 is great wait your turn. You obviously came on at a young age and never worked a job where you actually were accountable with rules set in stone!
Funny that someone would post that the people wanting the insurance after 29 and a day and not 55 are hair gel Police. Think before you type. Those Officers wanting this are in their 50’s and approaching 29 years on the job. Cmon man!!!
11/20/2023 12:20:00 AM
You keep posting this put in the basket of "things that will never happen," along with residency!!
11/20/2023 10:44:00 AM
Yes, and don't forget to put full social security benefits into the same basket !
I will be nowhere near Chicago when the DNC arrives next Summer. Good Luck to all
10 years left. Can't wait. Blinders until then. Give them what they want...fetal police work . You're an idiot if you are even running a plate.
The First Amendment doesn’t cover hate speech or violence, which just about every single one of these signs say.
5:26pm. I'd stake my ass the dept isn't going to be able to fire 50 coppers or however many were involved in this, for this type of b.s especially since the G.O (which def could be written better) states its allowed. If you've done any police work in your life instead of being afraid of your own shadow, you'd know lawyers will sue no matter what happened, the City will pay them to go away and you go on with your life.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
The First Amendment doesn’t cover hate speech or violence, which just about every single one of these signs say.
11/21/2023 05:36:00 PM
Actually the First Amendment does cover hate speech
So when you burn a business down, as long as it's the means of exercising your 1st Amendment rights, it's fine.
Post a Comment
<< Home