Every police force is, I believe, part of a union. That's fine, but the union exists to protect the police and that is also good, but problematic when it comes time to deal with a police officer violating a policy. Thats the realy story behind defunfond, unions having too much negotiated protection for police including qualified immunity and also all kinds of "good ole boy" termination protection.
Right or worg, I am only pointuing out that you can see that in the Atalata case ficussed here:
Thea article is about to cops suing to get their job back (that's fine) after both being allegedly caught on camera during riots using excessive force, but note the is reference:
"The fired officers' lawsuit states that they were dismissed without an investigation, proper notice or a pre-disciplinary hearing and that the firings were against city code."
Take note of the procedures in bold. Most people can be terminated for cause or even no cause (employment at will) but in the case of these police officers it looks like their UNION contract requires an internal investigations and NOTICE and even a "pre-disciplinary hearing." This last item -- pre-dicplinary hearing -- is often times ALLEGEDLY by police officers themselves who are also UNION members and so the allegtion is that they all protect each other.
Again, I am not offering a value judgment about whether that is right or wrong, just pointing out that like many CIVIL SERVANTS their jobs are highly protected and the argument behind defunding is that their jobs are TOO protected. In the Floyd case the Union disagrees with the discipline and the Union boss is alleged to be a known racist. Alleged, but you can get the point.
Its a weird position because if you are a Trump supporter or police supporter (nothing wrong with either) you're actually reverse of the normal GOP position which would be anti-union, anti-civil servant.
