Union rules protect pepper-spraying cop from the firing he deserves

By David McElroy · April 20, 2012

After UC-Davis Police Lt. John Pike was shown pepper-spraying peaceful students five months ago, the biggest question on the minds of some people was how quickly the guy would be fired. Due to union rules, though, Pike is still on the job and it’s unlikely he’ll ever be fired.

It was pretty clear to anybody who watched the initial video that Pike was way out of line, but it’s become clear since then that he and the school were even more in the wrong than we realized at the time. In fact, the official investigation into the incident shows that there wasn’t even any legal basis for police or college officials to demand the students leave the school’s quad.

At the time, we all thought the students were engaging in civil disobedience. The actions of Pike and other police that day were clearly excessive, but we assumed that the order to disperse was legal. It turns out that it wasn’t even a legal order. So there wasn’t a legal basis for asking the students to leave and the official report faults Pike with bad judgement and unprofessionalism for the pepper-spraying and other things that day. So why is he still employed?

In California, police unions have negotiated due process rights that ordinary citizens would never be allowed. First, the official report of the incident by the university can’t be used against Pike. The only thing that can be taken into account is an internal affairs investigation done by two former police officers and an attorney. Pike refused to cooperate and his superior likewise refused to be interviewed by the investigators. And the panel isn’t allowed to use any information that it didn’t gather itself.

Their methods are secret. After the report is prepared, it won’t be made public. It will be submitted to a committee to certify that it was conducted properly. Even then, there’s no guarantee that any action will be taken based on what they might find. The public will never have any idea what happens. The only thing we know is that Pike is still employed. It seems unlikely that will change.

It’s ironic that Pike is going to be protected by his union-negotiated rules. Unions are pretty tightly allied with the progressive left agenda of the Occupy movement. Those who advocate for unions don’t seem to understand what they really stand for and how much power they really have, especially among government workers.

It’s theoretically possible that Pike will be disciplined, I suppose, but the rules are set up to protect him and I see no reason to believe he won’t get away with it. The interests of the union is keeping jobs for its members at all costs. Justice and public safety are completely irrelevant — and that’s why this law should be changed and why naive people need to realize that unions aren’t the saintly organizations they believe.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts