Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Who’s bluffing whom?

Posted in:

Illinois

Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara on Wednesday called Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s bluff — saying if she’s serious about making disciplinary changes to the police contract, she’ll eliminate the requirement that Chicago Police officers live in the city and give them the right to strike.

One proposed disciplinary change would allow anonymous complaints — without a sworn affidavit.

“If they want to get rid of the [sworn] affidavit, then take the residency requirement out of the frickin’ contract and also take the no-strike clause out of our contract and then, let’s see how serious you really are. Give us the same ability that teachers have and give us the ability to live outside the city and then we’ll entertain the conversation about getting rid of the affidavit,” Catanzara told the Sun-Times.

“They’re full of it. … You keep talking about the affidavit. That’s a gigantic ask for us. You’re gonna be willing to give up residency and the no-strike clause? I guarantee they’re gonna say `no.’ But, it’s equal to me. It’s what we want you to give up in exchange for what you’re asking us to give up. They’re not gonna do it any more than we are.” […]

The City Council’s Black Caucus has threatened to block ratification of any police contract that continues to make it “easy for officers to lie” by giving them 24 hours before providing a statement after a shooting and also prohibits anonymous complaints (by requiring sworn affidavits) and allows officers to change statements after reviewing video.

* 5 ILCS 315/17…

Sec. 17. Right to strike.

(a) Nothing in this Act shall make it unlawful or make it an unfair labor practice for public employees, other than security employees, as defined in Section 3(p), peace officers, fire fighters, and paramedics employed by fire departments and fire protection districts, to strike except as otherwise provided in this Act.

Lightfoot can’t take that out of the contract. The General Assembly would have to pass a bill. And who the heck is gonna carry a bill to allow police officers to strike?

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 12:35 pm

Comments

Well since the FOP is spitballin’ and offering up non-starter ideas I’ll off up another one. For every dollar that the city pays in settling misconduct and brutality claims, the FOP will agree to a dollar reduction in payroll or pension contributions.

Comment by Pundent Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 12:46 pm
I’m not an expert on this, but given what I’ve seen of how arbitrators have ruled with respect to CPS/CTU, I’m not so sure FOP wants to be calling any bluffs right now, especially given the city/state finances, history of expensive settlement of suits against the police, and general atmosphere.

Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 12:47 pm
=…eliminate the requirement that Chicago Police officers live in the city..=

Just living in the city doesn’t cut it. Not only should cops live in the city, they should live in the district in which they work.
If they walked the beat and actually knew the difference between the gangbangers and the kid who’s working his way through college, we’d have fewer problems.

Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 12:51 pm
I have no experience with police contract arbitration, but my guess is that the union will have a hard time winning on the affidavit issue. Regardless, a better solution is to have the General Assembly establish police complaint, review, and disclosure policies as public law that applies to all police departments. That would eliminate these issues from the bargaining process. Last year, that kind of change wasn’t likely. In the current climate, though, that type of bill might pass.

The police unions need to be very careful about how they respond to calls for more transparency and oversight. If they’re not careful, the decisions will be made without their input.

Comment by Pelonski Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 12:56 pm
60/30, 71/36, signature.

Need sponsor(s), need support within caucuses and committees…

And there is no visible evidence, or “wave-like” call, that this gets out of the dorm room, even if the hot pockets are cooked just right.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 12:57 pm
Let folks live where they want to live. But the trade off is $.50 on the dollar of every settlement comes out of the union contract.

Comment by Really Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 12:57 pm
Lightfoot could take it out of the contract. She could agree in a heartbeat, and not actually concede anything as long as statute remains.

This FOP chief is doing great for his members

Comment by Socially DIstant Watcher Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 12:58 pm
an FBI agent involved in a shooting gets 72 hours before speaking to investigators.

the FOP should ask for a salary increase similar to what Lightfoot gave to CTU.

Comment by Anathema Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:02 pm
The FOP has a good point on the residency requirement, it serves no legitimate purpose. A person could live in Indiana a block out of Chicago and arrive faster to many parts of Chicago then someone living in Chicago up across the street from Evanston. They should think about expanding the allowable residency area to be the “Chicago commercial zone” that was defined by the federal government in regulations of trucking companies.

Comment by DuPage Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:07 pm
What the police union may not appreciate is that the affidavit is one of the smallest asks that could be on the list right now.

The real directive, which become less of an ask everytime this joker speaks up, is a significant restructuring of how the city addresses crime.

More professionally-trained patrols for mental health, domestic violence, and theft calls. Reducing police to only more immediate threat calls. Etc.

The city is eventually going to think having a big drawn out fight over an affidavit isn’t worth it, and get to the more significant structural changes.

Comment by Ok Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:07 pm
Let em strike–then break the union

Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:09 pm
There a positive consequence (for Chicago’s finances) to allowing Chicago police officers outside the city: those who can’t vote don’t count. I’m not saying this would be a good situation but other towns that allow it have a different relationship with the police.

Comment by Steve Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:12 pm
Sure, let them strike and break the union. LOL because it worked out so well when the police stood down during the protests. You won’t have a city left if the police are given the ability to strike and it lasts a week

Comment by Undercover Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:14 pm
=Not only should cops live in the city, they should live in the district in which they work.=

And what happens when she gets promoted and moved to another district? She has to sell her house, move a couple of miles away, yank her kids of the school they’ve been in since kindergarten? How is that helpful?

Comment by JoanP Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:15 pm
Similarly, the residency requirement is in the City’s municipal code: http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/title2citygovernmentandadministration/chapter2-152officersandemployees?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_il$anc=JD_2-152-050

Comment by anoni Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:16 pm
The sworn affidavit requirement is in state law, too. At least for now.

Fran Spielman’s silly “bluff calling” spin aside, the residency requirement angle is interesting. If the mayor is willing to “give” on that, she could probably get some significant reform concessions out of the FOP. I doubt she goes there, because it would set a precedent with other unions. The employee residency requirement helps keep some semblance of a middle class in the city.

Comment by Telly Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:16 pm
===How is that helpful? ===

Exactly.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:17 pm
==Not only should cops live in the city, they should live in the district in which they work.==

That won’t work on soooooo many levels.

Comment by Southwest Sider Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:18 pm
=== You won’t have a city left if the police are given the ability to strike and it lasts a week===

Thing about police striking… them choosing to strike won’t be the PR move like teachers striking.

Are you telling me, in Chicago, it’ll poll well for police if they decide to first strike and the city implodes?

Hmm.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:19 pm
A small concession on complaints against further distancing police from the communities they serve? No thanks.

I wouldn’t necessarily call it a bluff, but I would call it overplaying a hand.

Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:21 pm
“Let em strike–then break the union” Bruce? I thought you were in Italy?

Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:21 pm
It’s called leverage. Why would you want to take that risk?? It’s easy to pontificate when you’re safe out in the boonies Willy.

Comment by Undercover Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:25 pm
And how would these proposals change incidents like Laquan McDonald?

Comment by Downstate Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:28 pm
=== It’s called leverage.===

“Give in or watch your city burn?”

That’s how I’d sell it, especially with a police department that has considerable PR issues, not necessarily “beloved”

Leverage works when you can point to support, not extortion that is a veiled threat that the police will be “cheering” an imploding as their leverage.

=== Why would you want to take that risk??===

“Mighty nice city you have here, a shame if sumptin’ happened to it”

Are you saying the police are that pathetic?

=== It’s easy to pontificate when you’re safe out in the boonies===

We have TWO stoplights in downtown Oswego… we’re booming.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:30 pm
The 99% of cops are getting tired of putting their life on the line, making split second life and death decisions, then being hung out to dry by politicians because of a few bad apples. So then they don’t strike but instead they decide to think twice about being put in harms way. Either way, the community suffers

Comment by Undercover Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:39 pm
“she’ll eliminate the requirement that Chicago Police officers live in the city”

Alarm bells going off in Edison Park, and Mount Greenwood

Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:46 pm
=How is that helpful?=

Yeah, I thought of that scenario after I posted, but the concept is still valid.
Maybe a better way would be to recruit from the hood. Or incentivize living there.
Didn’t Rahm have some incentive program to get cops to move into the hood?

Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 1:51 pm
If only there was some recent case law involving FOP’s attempts to contract its way out of state statutory requirements.

Comment by SAP Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 2:02 pm
after the nonsense Rahm pulled about his residency to be able to run for Mayor the requirement for CPD to live in the city is pretty weak sauce.

Comment by Teddy Salad Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 2:11 pm
“We’ll get rid of the residency requirement” has long been the battle cry of candidates running to lead the Chicago FOP and other employee unions. It never happens. Mayors once resisted it because they wanted there patronage workers in town working their home precincts. Of late, mayors have resisted it because (as @Telly mentioned above) they don’t want to lose a large portion of Chicago’s shrinking middle class to the burbs.

Lightfoot has a completely different bearing than previous mayors. Maybe she’ll think “fine, leave and take your votes with you.” (As @Steve alludes to above.)

What’s telling is that the CTU leadership does not throw the anti-residency red meat to their membership. They know their clout is enhanced by having their folks voting in Chicago, displaying a sense of political sophistication other public employee unions lack.

Comment by Roman Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 2:24 pm
===after the nonsense Rahm pulled===

That “nonsense” was based on something like 100 years of judicial precedent, but you be you.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 2:27 pm
Why shouldn’t the cops have time to review video. When a person is in a life and death situation he can’t remember every single detail. Could any of you? Instead we have politicians going frame by frame dissecting split second decisions

Comment by 12th Ward Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 2:37 pm
=== What’s telling is that the CTU leadership does not throw the anti-residency red meat to their membership. They know their clout is enhanced by having their folks voting in Chicago, displaying a sense of political sophistication other public employee unions lack.===

This is a choice cut… good stuff. This is why the comments section here… no match.

What this important thought shows, besides the political sophistication of CTU in the electoral process, is a real erosion of the political muscle the FOP isn’t using, the electoral muscle that can change campaigns and elections, and choosing to discuss things outside the idea “we live in this city, we vote too, don’t dismiss us”

To the other side of my own argument, the FOP/CPD as a wanted political ally right now seems less attractive, and that’s me being polite, but it’s still far better than using an extortion thought of a want of a strike and using chaos with that (all the while its an impossibility to be legally happening or passing) and is showing the atrophy of a political muscle, brought on by horrible incidents that pile on officers and the department as a whole.

The more I read and try to grasp what is trying to be accomplished, the more evident this new leadership in FOP is a step back in helping all sides, including union membership, and its underscored more in the events in Chicago and elsewhere in the last 30 days.

Maybe the FOP needs to regroup, read the room, understand where they stand, what’s doable, what’s not, and be a union dedicated to show its best members not cause others to spotlight their bad members.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 2:44 pm
===Are you saying the police are that pathetic?===

These days it’s not exactly a profession known for their restraint.

Comment by Candy Dogood Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 2:49 pm
I worked for the FOP as counsel handling OPS and Internal Affairs cases.

Without referencing any specific cases, I can say that the statements should be immediate.

The delay is bad for everyone. Not that I would ever allow my clients to lie, but the delay encourages officers to speak and to come up with a consistent story.

The delay is a gift to bad POs.

Comment by Gooner Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 2:52 pm
“by having their folks voting in Chicago”

CTU’s leadership sure as heck also cares how their folks vote.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 2:56 pm
Undercover, too many “good” POs protect the bad.

I saw it over and over again.

You don’t want to be blamed for the bad? Start speaking when you see the bad conduct

Comment by Gooner Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 3:00 pm
I see the weakness about requiring officers to live in the areas they patrol. What I would like to see is a requirement that officers must live in the entire city and no given neighborhood in the city can have more than 20% of the entire city’s police force living in it. Because I think having a large number of officers living on the southwest side skews things.

Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 3:06 pm
=besides the political sophistication of CTU=

yo Willy, the CTU-endorsed candidate got whacked by Lightfoot.

Comment by Bristol Tap Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 3:07 pm
=== the CTU-endorsed candidate got whacked by Lightfoot===

… as did everyone else.

Kinda hard to find *anyone* who had Lightfoot winning, I know she wasn’t in my top 5 possible.

Are you saying that CTU has less political clout “today” than the FOP?

Maybe there’s more to the political acumen when teachers still poll so highly by voters and Lightfoot won, first in a crowded field, and last pummeling Preckwinkle.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 3:10 pm
=== The 99% of cops===

Whew… speaking for 99% of cops?

Your silly only makes sense if they all decide to quit.

Yet, they aren’t quitting

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 3:27 pm
===So then they don’t strike but instead they decide to think twice about being put in harms way.===

Tell that to the victims of police violence. Maybe thinking twice is what’s needed?

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 3:29 pm
=== So then they don’t strike but instead they decide to think twice about being put in harms way.===

Finally,

If that’s how the FOP wants folks to see this, through your comment, that tells me the FOP will be advocating ignoring their oath and what kind of officers would *any* city want with a systemic plan by the rank and file to ignore the oath as an extortion tool.

I gotta be honest.

You’re not helping much.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 3:43 pm
I definitely favor residency requirements for a few reasons. It keeps large numbers of middle class families in the city. Their dollars are more likely spent in the city which boost the local economy. (I have always heard that Detroit’s decline was fueled by removing the residency requirements.)

Your kids go to school in the city and you are more vested in its well-being. You or your spouse may get involved with the local school PTA, contribute time to the local non-profits or coach a ball team. And as a result you interact with people in the City and get beyond the “those people” mentality.

You get to know the City beyond just your precinct because you “live” in the city. You don’t just hop on the highway to get out of town after work.

I disagree with the idea that it doesn’t matter because you can live one street outside the city and be in a more central location than someone in a random location. The reality is few people will move just across the border. And the reality is some will move many miles away.

Comment by City Guy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 3:46 pm
(Following the “Anonymous” rule)

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 3:57 pm
@- cermak_rd - Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 3:06 pm:

===I see the weakness about requiring officers to live in the areas they patrol. What I would like to see is a requirement that officers must live in the entire city and no given neighborhood in the city can have more than 20% of the entire city’s police force living in it. Because I think having a large number of officers living on the southwest side skews things.===

Yeah, I think that will work out just fine. That is, if the city will pay for a house the officer picks out, city pays for insurance and taxes, and after 3 years the officer can sell the house, keep the money, and move to another neighborhood with a special exemption allowing the officer to live outside the city.

Comment by DuPage Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 4:07 pm
===he can’t remember every single detail. Could any of you?===

As a witness, I’d be asked to immediately tell my story. Why can a cop look at the tape first? You can’t deny that it allows time for a new story to be developed if needed. Immediate interviews of the witness and suspect officers are a key component of justice.

Comment by Jibba Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 4:18 pm
The last thing in the world FOP really wants is for cops to be able to live outside the city. Sure, cops want the freedom to live anywhere, but the FOP needs them all to be Chicago voters in order to maintain their power.

Comment by Ben Tre Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 4:19 pm
just can’t listen when Cantazara, who has a terrible work record, says things like this, or the Alderman with the popcorn. they are making things worse for decent police. make rational proposals, stop tuning up your membership.

Comment by Amalia Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 4:20 pm
=== So then they don’t strike but instead they decide to think twice about being put in harms way. Either way, the community suffers===

Communities and individuals have been suffering by the choices officers have made.

If you’re saying that officers *can* make choices, note then you’re also saying that this “split second, reactionary” ways are those not making choices, good or bad, and you’re saying that officers in instances *can* makes choices but don’t.

If one is equating crimes and what choices rank and file officers make, I don’t think that’s what a police union wants as its message.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 4:22 pm
Look up “wrong person, wrong time” in the dictionary and you will find a picture of this FOP disaster.

Comment by d.p.gumby Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 5:00 pm
Since we’re entertaining wild ideas, let’s reduce the FOP pension payments by the costs of misconduct lawsuit payouts. Since they’re so keen on sticking together, they should collectively bear the cost of their sins not city residents.

Comment by Veil of Ignorance Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 5:12 pm
===they should collectively bear the cost of their sins not city residents===

lol

I should report this comment https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 5:16 pm
How many who have commented are a Police Officer or actually live in the city? Both the city and the FOP get more free press than they should everyday about issues that have no impact on downstate. None of us know the facts…the size of the district or the call volume. This is or should be about reform not unions…What is the actual number of police on black shootings. police on white and policee on brown? Anybody have a guess…Because that is all you are doing…

Comment by Not A Expert Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 5:58 pm
=== How many who have commented are a Police Officer or actually live in the city? Both the city and the FOP get more free press than they should everyday about issues that have no impact on downstate.===

We are ONE state, and in case you head has been in the sand for the last 30 days, this is a global issue of racism, systemic and institutional, and as *YOU* question zip codes and addresses, the city of Chicago is a global city, with people coming from, you guessed it, downstate, out of state, EVERY state. It matters because Chicago isn’t a bubble, as downstate or anywhere you’d like to choose isn’t a bubble. It is such weak sauce to *think* if you’re not from Chicago you can’t add a voice to these issues or problems.

And let’s be even clearer, that whole phony strike thingy needs legislation passed, that means the state, and if you want me to take seriously even dorm room political ignorance, then it’s a state issue. Keep up.

=== None of us know the facts…the size of the district or the call volume. This is or should be about reform not unions…What is the actual number of police on black shootings. police on white and policee on brown? Anybody have a guess…===

Use the Google Key. If you can find this post to comment, look for the statistics CPD puts out. Don’t be lazy and then double down on the lazy to say it can’t be found.

This global call to end the violence, that Black Lives Matter isn’t going to upended by questions of zip codes, and isn’t going to be ignored by lazy searches to facts.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 6:14 pm
- Typical Snow -

Facebook is further down the dial.

I dunno, making it about me in a drive by prolly isn’t even Facebook quality trolling.

Stay well.

:)

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 6:35 pm
- Kit Kat -

You and - Typical Snow - should talk amongst yourselves, unless you’d like to add to the discussion?

If it’s too hard to have a thought…

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 6:54 pm
Willy, I apparently was not concise enough in my questions? Simply put, the world is a big place, The United States is a big place, approximately 350 million citizens who are protected by approximately 800,000 Police in some capacity. In 2017 10 million persons were arrested nationwide, out of that number, using 10 million as a base line, one could reasonably state that approximately 30 to 50 million had some type of contact with a police officer. In 2018 995 were shot by police, 403 white, 210 black, 149 Hispanic, 38 other and 199 unknown. Of that 995 47 were unarmed, 23 of which were white, 17 black, 5 Hispanic and 2 unknown. I am quite certain that you will retort and have a different number. In either case, people were killed, not just in Chicago. It is a united states issue. Global is a totally different subject. My question what is the population of Chicago, the number of police, the number of calls, the number of 911 calls etc…. Trying to point out that these numbers I am sure are available but no one is listening. 99.999 percent of the Police are good officers who do not stray outside of the law. Read Garner vs. Tennessee sometime, Terry vs Ohio. Unless of course you know more than the Justices of the Supreme Court in which case you would be a social media follower and a as you put it, a Troll. I believe you are a intelligent, independent thinker who has been overwhelmed in your own apparent greatness and are no longer willing to have a discussion, only judge and condemn…. If you do not accept these as the law, move globally, or run for higher office and change it. The Supreme Court would not hear the challenge to Qualified Immunity. Read the briefs.. My point is, the union, all unions, defend the contract, not individuals…. This is something that has been bargained for many years in Chicago, regardless of what anyone thinks, as Rich pointed out, they cannot strike, its absurd that anyone would even suggest that.. But defunding is not the answer….. The answer is reform, it is a democracy and last time I checked we were a democratic society and the Police work for all of us… You should have input in your area, but to speak as if you are the only answer for Chicago and their issues is unfathomable to me…. you have a great platform and always offer great talking points, just step back and let this develop more before you blast me and others in a field you are not experienced in….

Comment by Not a expert Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 10:04 pm
=== Trying to point out that these numbers I am sure are available===

Then your alleged beef with me… is your laziness.

=== I believe you are a intelligent, independent thinker who has been overwhelmed in your own apparent greatness and are no longer willing to have a discussion, only judge and condemn===

lol, ok friend.

Then why care what I think?

=== But defunding is not the answer==

Yeah, no one says that, including me, but good straw man. lol

===always offer great talking points===

You don’t believe I do that, you wrote the following;

===… has been overwhelmed in your own apparent greatness and are no longer willing to have a discussion, only judge and condemn===

but it sounds smart and winning. Please don’t try to first say that, then patronize me. Thank you.

===… but to speak as if you are the only answer for Chicago===

Friend, I don’t think I have the answers, but I’m not going to be lazy and expect a discussion to begin with questions I can easily find, it be a discussion about things that are an impossibility legislatively.

=== If you do not accept these as the law, move globally, or run for higher office and change it.===

This is a confusing way to deflect… “oh yeah, then do something” isn’t a retort, it’s a call to something different.

Finally..

=== Simply put, the world is a big place===

And Black Lives Matter… ignoring the reasons why reform is needed, as the world is crying out and holding law enforcement accountable… makes your own words seem quite small to any bigger picture.

The world is watching.

Thinking it’s a Chicago thing you want micro-analyzed… yet… you don’t even acknowledge Black Lives Matter…

=== just step back and let this develop more before you blast me and others in a field you are not experienced in….===

… and yet, with all this you feel the need to teach me… your comment had to include “defund the police”, where not a soul discusses that, but not a mention of Black Lives Matter.

Please don’t patronize me, I say that nicely. Thanks.

Oswego Willy

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 10:26 pm
=== All lives matter…===

You’ve learned nothing… from society, here in Chicago, Illinois, America… globally.

Good luck.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 25, 20 @ 10:41 pm
Catanzara is willing to throw his union members under the bus if there is something in it for him personally. That is all Lightfoot needs to know to negotiate.

He proved this when he said “If you kneel, you’ll be risking being brought up on charges and thrown out of the lodge.”
1. He wouldn’t say this if he didn’t think this was something officers would do, and 2. by saying this he is saying that the officers’ opinions don’t matter, only his opinions matter.

So that now that you know this, Lori, negotiate away.

Comment by 17% Solution Friday, Jun 26, 20 @ 6:48 am
@not a expert, what is the source for your 2018#s, especially the part about unarmed?????
Not a Expert has numbers that track with what I have read from multiple sources. it is crucial to know the actual facts.

Comment by Amalia Friday, Jun 26, 20 @ 10:23 am
Not an expert - the issue is not about people being shot by police. It is a much bigger issue.

Comment by City Guy Friday, Jun 26, 20 @ 10:56 am