• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GoFundMe yanks online fundraiser for Baltimore cops in Freddie Gray case

I have no problem with their Terms of Service. Their site. They should have the right to choose who they want as customers (as every business in this country should). Just as long as they're consistent, which I think they are.
It appears that way so far
 
I'm not sure that's fair. It's a no brainer corporate decision to avoid these kinds divisive and controversial campaigns like the plague. Some other group of entrepreneurs can risk their livelihood by funding the defense of those charged with serious crimes like murder, manslaughter, rape, etc.

If they allow fundraisers for cops, they have to allow fundraisers for skinheads, serial rapists, and an endless list of truly loathsome criminals who might find a sympathetic audience online. If those campaigns aren't central to your business model, and they're not, why put up with the risk and bad publicity?

I get the point that you and others make regarding the controversial nature, and offending people, and so on, but I still have to conclude the same thing. That, or, it just says that money trumps principle... which I suppose shouldn't be a huge surprise.

But there's a big part of me that thinks how reflexively potentially shortsighted it is. Granted, you could have some truly loathsome people getting defense money, absolutely. But this policy also shuts out legitimate people from getting defense money as well.

Sure, there could be other methods of raising money, but the whole point of this is to make it easy and serve good causes. Maybe it's just me, but I consider allowing the justice system to work as intended to be a good cause. It's similar to 4th and 5th Amendment protections... sure, guilty people abuse the intent, but they're really there for the innocent.
 
What if they weren't consistent? Wouldn't they have the right to be so under your understanding of rights and ideological discrimination? Or is the only discrimination that is acceptable the kind that attacks homosexuals? ;)
 
It appears that way so far

So far.

You started with a premise that they weren't consistent. That was proven wrong quite quickly. But you're still qualifying your statements. You still don't really believe they are consistent.
 
So far.

You started with a premise that they weren't consistent. That was proven wrong quite quickly. But you're still qualifying your statements. You still don't really believe they are consistent.
Your side is still making stuff up I see. I linked a fundraising page that appeared to violate the TOS at Gofundme and took a wait and see approach.

Notably, one of the pages pulled by Gofundme was for the policemen's family, not for the policemen themselves
 
The business can make up any requirements it wants.

That said, if they wanted to be fair, the fact of charges should not be a disqualification as it is not a sign of actual wrong doing.
 
The business can make up any requirements it wants.

That said, if they wanted to be fair, the fact of charges should not be a disqualification as it is not a sign of actual wrong doing.
In addition.
They allow funding for those already convicted which makes absolutely no sense in light of not allowing funding for those simply accused/charged.
 

My hard core, far right, gun-culture, gun-totin', tea partier brother is anti-cop. I, an independent, support the blue. So you have your info incorrect on who supports who.

I think you'll find that those who are anti-cop are people who don't like authority and being told what to do. Which would be anti-establishment AND hard core far right conservatives or libertarians or tea partiers.
 
Not that it's the subject of this OP, but why do these police officers need fundraising for their defense. I've seen the union legal counsel on television frequently talking about the number of cases he's been involved in on behalf of the union and its members and I'd be surprised if any of these officers will have any out of pocket expenses to any great extent related to the criminal charges.

Now, if this is in anticipation of civil litigation and the potential for each or any of them to be held civilly liable for damages to Mr. Gray's family, that might be a different story, but I'd be surprised if their union didn't cover them in this regard as well, particularly if they are acquitted of any criminal charges.
 
Back
Top Bottom