Poll of the Day > 400 Seattle POLICE OFFICERS are set to be FIRED cause they REFUSE the VACCINE!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Seattle Police is preparing to FIRE up to 400 Police Officers who REFUSED to get the COVID-19 vaccine which is in line with the city's strict vaccine mandate despite already suffering staffing shortages, rising crime and high 911 response times.

They set an October 18 deadline for all sworn personnel to turn in proof of COVID-19 vaccinations or risk losing their job

As of Friday, 292 have yet to do so or 27% of its 1080 deployable officers

Another 111 officers, 10% of deployalbe officers are waiting on EXEMPTION requests

If all 403 cops are let go, they will lose 37% of its force

Police Chief, Adrian Diaz has warned them to prepare for a Stage 3 Mobilization, an emergency plan to put all remaining officers on standby to respond to 911 calls.

The police dept look over a population of 724,000 people and staffing is already at its lows since the 1980s

Seattle Mayor, Jenny Durkan said she values each of these officers and does not want to lose them but reinforced the mandate writing "The people that count on you the most are the ones that you need to get vaccinated"

Gov. Jay Inslee imposed a vaccine mandate on all public, charter and private school teachers and staff and those in state colleges and universities and 80% of its citizens are vaccinated

One female officer who wanted to remain anonymous said she would be leaving the police anyway because of the toxic and negative environment from dealing with left wing protesters as she blasted the vaccine mandate

1/3 of the police officers believe the vaccine is the MARK OF THE BEAST and refuse to follow the rest of the population in getting vaccinated which they believe will KILL you in due time.

Should these people anti-vaxxers get booted out?

https://i.imgur.com/rYDRXpl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/3Kz2llq.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/zNJfRl1.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/lOlfk7r.jpg
---

Full Throttle posted...

If all 403 cops are let go, they will lose 37% of its force

Pretty sure Seattle already decided it doesn't need cops. The people can police themselves.

---

So thats what it takes, huh?

Zeus posted...

Pretty sure Seattle already decided it doesn't need cops. The people can police themselves.

Agreed, they're doing just fine as is. Right...right?

---

who knew that all it took to get rid of alt-right weirdos in the police was sensible measures

---

Lokarin posted...

who knew that all it took to get rid of alt-right weirdos in the police was sensible measures

Problem is... leftists don't want to be cops

Lokarin posted...

who knew that all it took to get rid of alt-right weirdos in the police was sensible measures

Its not only right ringers refusing to get the vac. A number of vaccine hesitant people exists in virtually all professions. From Cops, to NBA players, to pilots to nurses Etc. They all have their reasons for not wanting it. I personally am in no rush to get it given the vast amount of drugs, too numerous to detail here, that have been introduced only to later find an unintended consequence. The vaccine was literally rushed into production at warp speed and if people want to be cautious that's their prerogative. You don't get to make that choice for them.

hungrymike posted...

The vaccine was literally rushed into production at warp speed and if people want to be cautious that's their prerogative.

That WOULD have been a fair reason last year (time not to scale), but now there are multiple vaccines that have passed BEYOND the emergency usage clause

---

And all 400 of them can sue if fired since it's completely unconstitutional and illegal to force anyone to put anything in their body.

---

MagicalPrincess posted...

And all 400 of them can sue if fired since it's completely unconstitutional and illegal to force anyone to put anything in their body.

unless their union agreed to it

---

Zeus posted...

Pretty sure Seattle already decided it doesn't need cops. The people can police themselves.

Pretty sure there were murders in the blm commie area during the blm riots.

MagicalPrincess posted...

And all 400 of them can sue if fired since it's completely unconstitutional and illegal to force anyone to put anything in their body.

How can someone appear so confident, and yet so wrong?

They aren't being held down and injected against their will. It's a condition of employment, and such requirements have a long (and legally accepted) history.

---

hungrymike posted...

You don't get to make that choice for them.

Then they can exist outside of the rest of vaccinated society.

---

---

oh that was the wrong image, my bad



---

Seattle has cops? Who knew

---

Baardmeester posted...

Pretty sure there were murders in the blm commie area during the blm riots.

I heard there were even more outside of it.

---

MagicalPrincess posted...

And all 400 of them can sue if fired since it's completely unconstitutional and illegal to force anyone to put anything in their body.

Vaccines have been conditions of employment for certain jobs for pretty much as long as vaccines have been a thing. Nobody's being forced to put anything into their bodies, they're just not allowed to work in positions where refusing to do so will endanger others.

hungrymike posted...

The vaccine was literally rushed into production at warp speed

What corners are you concerned have been cut? All stages of the necessary clinical trials were completed as usual. The fact that they were rolled out so quickly was a matter of completing those steps in parallel instead of in sequence (saves about 4-6 months), production facilities being constructed as soon as candidates looked promising instead of waiting for final approval (saves 6-12 months), and not having to wait in line for approval or search particularly hard to find trial volunteers and initial funding (varies, but I could believe that saved another 6 months). The science supporting their safety is all there. If it weren't, none of these vaccines would have made it to market.

Furthermore, development on the mRNA vaccines in particular (since all they needed to get started was the sequenced genome) started in early January 2020. It's now October 2021. Typical vaccine development time is about 2 years, and we're currently at the 1.83 mark. We're now pretty close to a time frame that would be considered "normal," with literally billions of doses given and carefully scrutinized, so even if you were concerned about how new they were back in February/March, that's not really a relevant concern anymore. You've been saying "there hasn't been enough time since development started" for so long that there has now actually been a normal amount of time.

---

if they actually approached the vaccine from a logical, data-driven point of view, they would already support it

At this point you're not going to convert anyone with reason or data, because if that worked they wouldn't be vaccine hesitant in the first place


---

Good, fuck these antivax nutjobs. Put all their dumb inbred asses on a little island somewhere where they can go fuck themselves and stop endangering decent people.

---

No.

BEERandWEED posted...

No.

Such a robust, convincing argument you've put forth. Truly, none who read this topic will have any reason to believe anything other than your position, as you have so thoroughly and comprehensively defended it as to leave no doubt that you and you alone have sided with the ultimate truth.

Or, you know, you could look at your failure to do anything whatsoever to defend your position and start seriously asking yourself if a position you can't do anything to defend is actually one you should be holding. I'll give you a hint: No.

Clench281 posted...

if they actually approached the vaccine from a logical, data-driven point of view, they would already support it

At this point you're not going to convert anyone with reason or data, because if that worked they wouldn't be vaccine hesitant in the first place

That's mostly why I'm shifting to push the "it has actually been two years now" line of reasoning. Obviously, they aren't going to be convinced that the rushed development process didn't cut any corners, but now that we're at a point where we can definitively say it's been about as long as it normally would since development started, that's a moot point. Now, it's a matter of convincing them that they can actually let go of the fear they've been clinging to for the past year, which is still challenging, but not impossible with a different approach.

---

I am somewhat mixed on how I feel about vaccine mandates and jobs requiring the vaccine. However, I think it makes sense for a jobs like the police force who will have to interact with all people, including those that are most vulnerable. The officers have a right to quit and find another job if they don't like it.

You cant comply your way out of tyranny.

---

BlockWatcher posted...

You cant comply your way out of tyranny.

You can't resolve the biggest public health crisis in a century by refusing to comply with every countermeasure that has any hope of working.

---

adjl posted...

You can't resolve the biggest public health crisis in a century by refusing to comply with every countermeasure that has any hope of working.

I didnt know they refused testing, or staying home when sick, or masking. Thank you.

---

BlockWatcher posted...

I didnt know they refused testing, or staying home when sick, or masking. Thank you.

Requiring frequent testing and masking is asking orders of magnitude more of people than getting a proven safe and effective vaccine

If you're against 'tyranny' and think vaccinations are tyrannous, but frequent testing and masking is not, then your logic is very bad


---

BlockWatcher posted...

I didnt know they refused testing, or staying home when sick, or masking. Thank you.

How are mask/testing/isolation mandates any less "tyrannical" than vaccines? They all involve significantly more personal sacrifice (a term which I use very loosely, especially as regards masking) than vaccination does.

Past that, do you really think that people haven't been spouting that exact same drivel in response to mask, testing, and isolation mandates?

Further still, after almost two years of struggling to keep up with the pandemic by masking, testing, and having people isolate when sick, are you really trying to suggest that they will be adequate to qualify as "countermeasures that have any hope of working" without also involving a vaccine or other, more effective countermeasure?

---

you all need to stop talking like your grown ups!

---

I don't know why adjl thinks I need to justify my thoughts that unvaccinated don't deserve discrimination. Not discriminating is the justification.

no, we absolutely should be discriminating against the unvaxxed, since they're the ones keeping us in this mess currently with their stupidity.

---

HelIWithoutSin posted...

I heard there were even more outside of it.

I heard more people lived outside of the commie blm area. I also heard 13% of the population committed 50% of the crimes.

Baardmeester posted...

I heard more people lived outside of the commie blm area. I also heard 13% of the population committed 50% of the crimes.

It's always funny to me when statistically illiterate ppl try using stats to reinforce their racist point of view

---

BEERandWEED posted...

I don't know why adjl thinks I need to justify my thoughts that unvaccinated don't deserve discrimination. Not discriminating is the justification.

Discrimination is a morally neutral concept. You discriminate when you choose to put blueberry jam on your toast instead of raspberry. There's is no inherent moral or logical merit in merely not discriminating (in fact, the choice to not discriminate is itself an act of discrimination, though that line of reasoning just gets silly).

Instead you need to consider what the benefits and drawbacks of any given act of discrimination are. Refusing to employ black people economically disadvantages an entire race while yielding no benefit whatsoever, so it's clearly bad. Refusing to allow drunk people to drive inconveniences a relatively small subset of people who voluntarily chose to drink in exchange for considerably reducing the risk of traffic fatalities, so it's clearly good.

You want to know why I think you need to justify your thoughts? That's because your thoughts do not in any way justify themselves. If you believe that discriminating against the unvaccinated will do more harm than good, explain that belief. On its own, "discrimination is bad" is completely devoid of semantic value.

---

Clench281 posted...

It's always funny to me when statistically illiterate ppl try using stats to reinforce their racist point of view

It's always funny to me when people without arguments using no argument to reinforce their baseless point of view.

Fire them harder, daddy

---

adjl posted...

Discrimination is a morally neutral concept. You discriminate when you choose to put blueberry jam on your toast instead of raspberry. There's is no inherent moral or logical merit in merely not discriminating (in fact, the choice to not discriminate is itself an act of discrimination, though that line of reasoning just gets silly).

Instead you need to consider what the benefits and drawbacks of any given act of discrimination are. Refusing to employ black people economically disadvantages an entire race while yielding no benefit whatsoever, so it's clearly bad. Refusing to allow drunk people to drive inconveniences a relatively small subset of people who voluntarily chose to drink in exchange for considerably reducing the risk of traffic fatalities, so it's clearly good.

You want to know why I think you need to justify your thoughts? That's because your thoughts do not in any way justify themselves. If you believe that discriminating against the unvaccinated will do more harm than good, explain that belief. On its own, "discrimination is bad" is completely devoid of semantic value.

Choosing between blueberry and raspberry is not discrimination.

Actual discrimination is always bad, regardless of who or why. Just because it doesn't apply to you doesn't change that fact.

The unvaccinated are not typhoid Mary's.

BEERandWEED posted...

The unvaccinated are not typhoid Mary's

they very much are though

---

likehelly posted...

they very much are though

Then so are the vaccinated

Fyi, Typhoid Mary was a woman named Mary Mallon who was an asymptomatic carrier of Typhoid, when told this, she didn't believe the medical professionals and refused to take reasonable precautions like washing her hands.

Baardmeester posted...

It's always funny to me when people without arguments using no argument to reinforce their baseless point of view.

I'd rather expend my energy on people who actually have the capacity to understand it

Thanks for trying tho

---

BEERandWEED posted...

Choosing between blueberry and raspberry is not discrimination.

It absolutely is. Discriminating against something is simply making a choice that excludes it, whatever that choice may be or however significant it is. The vast majority of the times the term "discrimination" is used in vernacular speech, it's in regards to racism and the like, which is generally a bad thing and creates the impression that discrimination is categorically bad, but that's not remotely true. As a concept, discrimination is neutral.

BEERandWEED posted...

Actual discrimination is always bad, regardless of who or why.

It's always bad to discriminate against unlicensed drivers? What about doctors that falsified their credentials? Chefs that refuse to ever wash their hands? Chefs that insist on putting six tablespoons of salt on every plate they send out?

There are plenty of unarguably beneficial discriminatory choices that you and everyone around you make every single day. Saying "discrimination is always bad" does absolutely nothing to support the point you're trying to make, and really only announces to the world that you don't actually understand what discrimination is or why/when it can be bad. Take this as an opportunity to learn. You'll be better for it.

Now, having learned, please attempt to tell me why you believe that discriminating against the unvaccinated is bad enough to outweigh the benefits. Otherwise, expect to have your opinion treated like the ignorant nonsense you are presenting it as.

BEERandWEED posted...

Just because it doesn't apply to you doesn't change that fact.

What makes you think no forms of discrimination apply to me?

---

Why are you paying so much mind to a joke account lol

---

MagicalPrincess posted...

And all 400 of them can sue if fired since it's completely unconstitutional and illegal to force anyone to put anything in their body.

The Supreme Court would probably disagree with you.

wait. Jacobson v Massachusetts means they would definitely disagree with you.

hungrymike posted...

Its not only right ringers refusing to get the vac. A number of vaccine hesitant people exists in virtually all professions. From Cops, to NBA players, to pilots to nurses Etc. They all have their reasons for not wanting it. I personally am in no rush to get it given the vast amount of drugs, too numerous to detail here, that have been introduced only to later find an unintended consequence. The vaccine was literally rushed into production at warp speed and if people want to be cautious that's their prerogative. You don't get to make that choice for them.

Very few NBA players are still not vaccinated, one of the only ones I know of is Kyrie Irving. He will probably change his mind though when he is forced to stay home during all home games and then doesn't get paid for them.

Pretty tough pill to swallow to lose roughly half of your salary because of that. He can take the hit since he has made a lot of money, but losing half of any salary sucks.

InfernalFive posted...

Why are you paying so much mind to a joke account lol

Because these are arguments I've seen made genuinely in enough other instances that I don't really care if this one is a legitimate instance or not. People actually believe these things, so rather than validating those beliefs by letting these arguments go unchallenged, I refute them as though they're being presented genuinely. It's all I can do to push back against the misinformation and fallacious arguments that are undermining the response to the pandemic.

---

Baardmeester posted...

I heard more people lived outside of the commie blm area. I also heard 13% of the population committed 50% of the crimes.

I also heard 87% of the population commits 50% of the crimes, which means 100% of the population commits 100% of the crimes.

---

It's a dangerous precedent.

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

It's a dangerous precedent.

What, firing people for failing to comply with their workplace's healthy and safety regulations? That's not a new precedent at all, nor is it particularly dangerous. Quite the opposite, in fact.

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

It's a dangerous precedent.

What's next, a license for driving a car?!

---