Creative Commons license icon

National Police Association embarrasses itself while going after Furries

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (11 votes)

In a strange send off to 2020, furries started to bring attention to the fact that a Twitter account dealing with law enforcement fundraising, the National Police Association, were blocking furry accounts. Unlike when Tony the Tiger did the same, there was some confusion as to why. Perhaps they learned about where the song of horse-dongs being played at a Southwestern protest came from?

It wasn’t too long after that the National Police Association, not understanding that they did have the right to remain silent, responded with an article on their site that is quite embarrassing. Within it they made their statement as to their blocking methods, and why they were blocking naughty furries, insinuating the furry fandom are composed of “costumed cop haters”.

It must be noted that this tweet has been locked to comment. This leads one to wonder which nation the National Police Association represents, because it certainly isn’t an American value to lock the ability for the public to speak. Luckily, on the internet, there are other avenues for words to be spoken, thanks to the furries that allegedly run it, of course.

So here we are, hold onto your butts.

A fear fetish fundraising fiasco?

Before they were known for blocking fuzzies, the National Police Association made news when those in law enforcement had to indicate that the Association was not actually associated with law enforcement and were instead an independent body that raised funding of their own fruition. One police chief went so far as to believe that it was a scam according to the Indianapolis Star. An article that the Association would later accuse of being defamatory in their furry article.

According the the piece, the messaging that the National Police Association sent to its recipients was so laced with fear mongering that it appeared to the actual police that it was an organization taking advantage of the vulnerable within their own communities. In turn, the mailers they used to try and acquire money for cops ended up causing cops to expend time and resources investigating the mailers. I guess this would make one ask: with fundraising like this, who needs expenditures?

In their haste to defend themselves from those accusations of being called a scam organization, the furry article by the Nation Police Association shares multiple redaction letters from several law enforcement institutions. However, what it failed to understand is that the final sentences in each of these letters and statements where the police organization confirms that the National Police Association is recognized by the IRS as a non-profit, they also damningly indicate that their law enforcement organizations, who are insinuated to be the beneficiaries of the NPA's fundraising efforts, never see a dime of that money:

The Belle Isle Police Department has confirmed that the National Police Association is an official organization. However, the Belle Isle Police Department is not affiliated with the National Police Association and has not received any money from the National Police Association.

The Trenton Police Department does not receive money from [The National Police Association]. Please do your own homework when donating to any charitable cause or organization

Neither Germantown nor its Police Department is affiliated with the National Police Association; and neither Germantown nor its Police Department has ever received any financial support from the National Police Association

The message is quite clear from the above quotes for those that can read subtext: If you do actually want to support the boys in blue, you may want to look elsewhere. The irony is that the National Police Association takes these statements and displays them as some sort of victory on their behalf. Congratulations! The cops are saying you don’t provide monetary support to them while looking as if you collect money for their benefit.

The Association may be upset that in some law enforcement officers’ opinions that they consider the Association quite scummy and scammy, but that opinion is based upon the facts and evidence that the Association themselves have provided in their article targeting the furries. That they don’t offer financial support to the practice of law enforcement in at least three of areas they attempted to raise funds in.

I mean if furries such as myself really hated cops, why would we inform our readership and the world at large of this vulturism behavior in the guise of altruism? We’d tell cop supporters to go ahead and blow their wad on an organization that cheerleads for cops but, according to these statements from the cops themselves, doesn’t offer any funding back to them with the money they suck out of their denizens.

Associative Properties

So the truth is that the Association isn’t even directly tied with law enforcement. Or in a way, they are not even ‘associated’ with the police.

At this point you have to wonder if any part of their name is indicative of what they are and that it isn’t one guy running this from his mother’s basement and calling it an ‘association’. I mean, going around the internet and finding articles written by journalists about law enforcement dealing with the conflicts in their line of work and reposting them to Twitter doesn’t necessarily take a team. It would explain why their own article targeted at furries ended with an obvious typo at the very end during its jab at the press.

Yet Gannett, the parent company of the Indianapolis Star, has yet to honor our request to delete the false and defamatory article.

Makes on [sic] wonder why Gannett stock has lost most of its value.

I guess it requires having more than one person to make sure that things are copyedited properly. Especially in the concluding sentence that is supposed to be the article's mic-drop moment.

Now before they start accusing me of being a grammar-Nazi, even if they didn’t typo this, it isn’t really all that intelligent of a dig at the press. They insulate that a newspaper’s stock is going down because the Star dared to question their fundraising practices instead of, you know, the actual reason. That being the internet and its impact on the very foundation of the published press’s subscription based business model.

To note I’m being facetious here, according to that Indianapolis Star article, the organization does have multiple people and is headed by an attorney from Indiana. One hopes, should the article be true in this, that said attorney's words in the courtroom are a bit more poignant than they are on his organization's webpage. At the very least the 'admin' who authored this should have probably left the writing to their columnists who do work for, a conservative news website where most of the NBA article writers come from.

And by the way, since this article about the furries is supposed to be the "2020 review" article, maybe a review of some of the items your organization tackled this year would be nice. Maybe thanking those columnist for their time contributing original works to the site? Need I remind people that this furry thing happened last week? Why is this the highlight of their year?

It's no wonder that the IndyStar is questioning where the funds are going. Their year's highlight is apparently rustling the furries jimmies and defending themselves (poorly) from an article published in May 2019. Did they do anything of actual note this year?

Maybe they should resolve to actually do some advocacy for law enforcement in 2021 that is more that just writing articles on the internet and sassing the furries. I'm sure the cops would appreciate it.

In Speaking of “Defamatory”

Don’t you find it strange that an organization that is for the enforcement of the letter of the law would accuse a news organization such as the Indianapolis Star of defamation, yet not take the actions to enforce that belief to the court of law? Given how often this happens in the Internet Age we ought to have a name for it. I’ll put my idea down here, but I’m sure the internet can come up with better

Obtrectatio Ego Opinio -(n.) An accusation of defamation that is not brought forth to a court system and holds no legal basis. The alleged defamation is merely an opinion of the person speaking, usually the target of the report or investigation they note as defamatory, and not based on the legal definition.(Slang shorthand: ‘O-e-O’; pronounced like those chanting monkeys from Oz.)

Given that the Indianapolis Star’s article did not claim that the National Police Association was a fraudulent organization and only reported on a police chief’s belief that it was at the time they were interviewed, this accusation of defamation would probably not hold up in court. But I'm not a lawyer. Since the person who leads the Association is noted to be an attorney they may be well aware of this, but they keep accusing the Indianapolis Star of defamation regardless.

Now to be fair, most people claiming defamation in this manner, and not putting teeth behind it, may not trust the court system to see it the way they do. However, if the National Police Association sees it that way and doesn’t want to take their chances taking Gannett to court over their accusation, I would ask them to pull back and see if they can find an ounce of irony that they don’t trust the courts to see the law as they do while they run a group that (allegedly) supports the police. Whose very job is to toss others before those very courts they do not trust.

And as stated before, the person who heads the organization is (allegedly) an attorney. I mean, you would think they would believe in the courts of all people. If not, then I look forward to the noir story where they are the lead protagonist. Who knows, the story may be of a fraud attorney so upset that law enforcement doesn’t take fraud seriously that he turns to a life of defrauding law enforcement through a non-profit they created to look like they are supporting law enforcement. Now that would (allegedly) be a bestseller!

It is this baseless accusation at the work of the press to ensure that fundraising dollars are going where their donners believe they are going, and the tone of their wording in their article about furries that makes me wonder if they actually fear law enforcement rather than endear it. When they make their own defamatory claim that furries want to see police officers dead, it smells of a person who sees police officers as bloodthirsty dogs that need to be given meat to target so that they ignore others they would attack otherwise. That if they kiss up to those with a badge that they may get away with unlawful activity that they may do. What I’m saying is that they’re being very try-hard in their (alleged) support, and when one brown noses that hard you have to wonder if they expect something in return from those they see as having power.

But only God knows what is in their heart, the above is just an opinion. Hopefully it this isn't their operating philosophy of fundraising for societies enforcers, because then fundraising for law enforcement would be no different then ‘fundraising’ for ‘protection’ from an ‘extrajudicial organization’. I’m a kangaroo, or at least play one on the internet, don’t make me get together with other kangaroos and spell it out for you what I’m talking about.

When support is not supportive

If a person sees someone as critical of their positions and stances as equivalent to someone who hates them and wishes to see them dead, that person who makes such a logical leap should have a psychological evaluation. They should not be trusted with a firearm, nor should they maintain the foundations of society in any way shape or form.

Instead of focusing on writing articles that are helpful to law enforcement for their 2020 finale, the National Police Association has instead chosen to make disingenuous assertions about a group of people based upon the actions of a few within it that they interacted with on the internet. In a world like that, is it any wonder where the phrase "cops are bastards” has been catching steam? If law enforcement or the organizations that are (allegedly) assisting them use a binary thought process on groups and organizations, should it be any wonder that those organizations or people that are accused of being unlawful or evil for simply existing come back with a damnation of the entirety of those organizations in return based on the action of a few within it? Maybe ask them to be defunded or have their power in some other way curtailed for the safety of others who may be unwarrantedly targeted by them?

I don’t expect the Nation Police Association to see the hypocrisy in themselves and to back down on it. I don’t expect them to commit themselves to acting better than the organizations they attack. I don’t expect them to walk back the defamation of furries as being costumed cop haters, while out the other side of their tongue lash out at those decrying that cops are bastards. I don’t expect them to apologize to the press for accusing them for being defamatory within an article that commits a far more egregious example of defamation just a few paragraphs prior and in its headline.

Because this is why we have something called a court system. No one organization or person should be the omnibus of the law. Not the President, not the Mayor, not the police, not the judges, and not some fraud attorney from Indiana, but all of those pieces together. Because if we narrow law enforcement down to the few or the one, then that organization or person will end up coloring the law based on their biases. They will decree that someone is a criminal just because they wear an animal costume, practice a particular religion, have consensual intercourse with those of the same sex, or because they were born with a skin pigmentation the lawkeepers don’t like.

So I think the best thing furries can do is to support the judicial process that these people who run these kinds of sites seem to fear so much. The job of the court is to ensure those who are corrupted by believing they are the law are reset in their assumptions. That they will be held to account for criminal actions they commit, as their peers would be. And if not, I guess we’ll just have to hope that there is a God who will sort them out in the end and make up for the flaws of our human institutions.

Not all furries “hate cops”. Some may, but there are those that are just critical of them and want them to do better. Heck there are even furs that believe the police can do no wrong to such a degree that may even make those in the National Police Association blush. The real world is more complex than trying to place whole groups of people into the blessed or damned. There are furries within the law enforcement community, I mean, have you ever watched Pottersville?

A dereliction of duty

Once again, if you’re not capable of seeing those complexities and want to use your platform to put people into a binary of citizen or criminal based on your feelings towards other people of those communities, then perhaps it is for the best that you do not support law enforcement. They are already having enough trouble trying to shake their reputation for systemic biases without your type of ‘assistance’, which only proves all those ‘haters’ correct.

If men like this are the ones raising funding for our law enforcement officials, then all good police officers should ask: “With friends like this, who needs enemies”? Trying to make enemies with furries is against the stated interests and goals of the National Police Association, which is supposed to be building public support of law enforcement, not encouraging distrust as your article does to furs who support our men and women in law enforcement. By pretending you speak for the police when you call furs cop haters.

You don’t speak for the cops, the cops are grown men and women that are capable of speaking for themselves. The actions of good cops speak for themselves and don’t belong to you. How dare you (allegedly) exploit their bravery for your own gain.

In creating that distrust, and acting against the mission statement of the Nation Police Association, the only moral thing that the one who wrote this article can do is resign. You needed to focus on advocacy of the men and women who do their jobs well, not create enemies by making broad and defamatory statements on people who wear animal costumes. Your job was to build bridges, not create walls with your block button, thus resigning your duty of changing the hearts and minds of those who are critical of the very concept of law enforcement and leaving that to another.

Need I remind you that reaching out to the skeptical is what your donors pay you for (allegedly)? Do it and stop wasting their money creating a safe space for yourself. Because the cops who go out on the beat don’t get paid to have one, not by our government and, per their own statements you provided us, certainly not by the National Police Association.

The article you wrote and the blocks you made on Twitter have done irreparable harm to the reputation of those men and women who put their lives on the line every day that you claim to represent. It makes them seem like they are sensitive and scared of people who wear fluffy dog heads.

It’s an embarrassment. And until there is a public resignation of the author, and letter of apology from the NPA with a reaffirmation on what their organization’s purpose is, that embarrassment belongs to the entirety of the National Police Association. For if the National Police Association can’t enforce their own organization’s mission statement, then how can we expect them to be of any help to those that are supposed to enforce the laws of our entire country?


Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

My suggestion here is that the only way this organization can build back trust is that Eddie Hutchison resign and hand the reigns to Chief Joel F. Shults, Ed.D.

I think of those who write for them, he's the most well written and experienced.

At this point it is highly suspect that a fraud attorney is heading the organization while there are accusations of the organization towing the line of misleading donors. He's probably well versed in the law for what he is doing to not technically be fraud, but morally he's edging that line.

Until he resigns, I would suggest choosing another organization, should you wish to support law enforcement.

Perhaps the National Association of Police Organizations, which come to think of it, may have "inspired" the naming of Mr. Hutchison's organization.

If Hutchison refuses to resign, I would hope that Chief Joel will consider moving to an organization he can be less embarrassed of and actually be thanked for his work at the year's end.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (8 votes)

As a furry, I totally hate all cops and want them all to ...


Oh, dear.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (4 votes)

This is not the way I would've liked to see the year starting. This seems to be a lot of words about what is essentially a non-issue.

There are some points raised that are relevant to how the organisation is run and what it does with its money but they have little to no connection with where the furry fandom comes into this story. The furry connection here is so ignored that you actually have to follow a link to read why they were blocking furry accounts in the first place!

It's also strange to see what is omitted. In such a long article there is, again, little attention paid the furry side of things. While the NPA itself seems to be a fairly disreputable organisation, the actions of furs here is not great either. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement about what furs were doing and that amounts to trolling and harassment which are not behaviours that we should be seen to encourage and condone.

To me, nobody involved in this fiasco is coming out looking good and I fail to see what this article was hoping to accomplish by using a minor issue to highlight a group few people had heard of or cared about. I'm not saying it wasn't worth reporting but the angle taken here seems to be little more than attacking a group just because it blocked some furs on social media.

~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (4 votes)

If they weren't for the blocking of furries and their article about us, I would not have written it.

They made it part of our jurisdiction by making us their '2020 highlight'.

That and in the eastern time zone it was the last article of 2020, not the first one of 2021.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (4 votes)

I totally get that, just that seemed to only be a springboard to something completely different.

In other timezones: "Posted by Sonious (Tantroo McNally) on Fri 1 Jan 2021 - 05:49"

~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (6 votes)

ACAB=Hate Speech.

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (3 votes)

I know the game of Good Cop/Bad Cop. The guy who killed George Floyd is a bad cop.

Your rating: None Average: 4.2 (5 votes)


Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Now you're speaking Stoltzman, Zebra man. I hate it how people defund the police.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (4 votes)

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (4 votes)

Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)

In the section that says they're crying defamation, but dismisses them for not suing, be careful of oversimplifying. If targeting a furry website was liable to trigger donations, they probably would do it.

The NPA actually does have a history of frivolous action. (Definition in the legal sense: not just silly, but abusively meritless. AKA vexatious litigation or barratry.)

At least one of those police depts was sued and settled. The NPA have launched bizarre attacks on prosecutorial discretion and more. And we might say it's the NPA's reason to exist.

They don't budget for losing meritless action, they're doing stunts that raise their profile... which is happening here even if they look stupid. While furries revel in pointless Twitter ratios, this raised NPA followers. When MAGA dummies clutch their pearls the cash register dings.

It's like how the Westboro Baptist Church protested funerals so they could sue people who overstepped on their technical protest rights. (Free speech absolutists are one-dimensional morons.)

If defamation is hard to prove, it's also a weapon of choice for bullies who can bury you in filings before it ever goes to trial. Never assume that perverse falsehoods can't fly in court, or they aren't suing because they can't. Trump did thousands of lawsuits like that to prove that bullies win (at least in the short term), it's why he sues and sues and sues until they drag him out of the White House crying "I won!" (People like that live miserable lives though, apart from rolling in stolen riches.)

I'm not aware of anyone else in the fandom with intimate experience in fighting people like that, but the bigger they are, the harder they fall. I won a $32,000 judgement by suing back at a failed defamation claim, done on behalf of a would-be $125 million investor lure.

The details, which almost nobody knows the truth of besides a few lawyers, are crucial to fandom business. The vexatious litigation was done with a secret weapon; an ex-lawyer who had advised the SFWA on protecting writers from publishing fraud, before his license was yanked for similar offenses. And before the fall a whole fandom was exploited, misled and weaponized by a fox in the henhouse.

The bullies didn't think anyone could resist years of legal fees, and they were almost right. They just got unlucky to pick on one in a million who would.

Dirty Hollywood underbelly stories with predator agents and creators imprisoned by bad deals, should be taken to heart by anyone interested in fandom business. One person's fan is another person's prey.

This NPA story pokes into what's wrong; the legal system is not a venue to resolve conflicts, it's a show stage where you can be nothing but a doormat to the bigger bully.

Giving the NPA attention funds them. A news piece can help inform, but just having a go at them on Twitter can make you the bigger fool. This story is a case for fans to learn about their part in showbiz, courts, and social media.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)

Forgot to add: there's a homegrown fox-in-the-henhouse org using such tactics on the fan level, Furry Valley. It's atrocious and probably won't stop from anything short of collective deplatforming or crime charges.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

I'm just going to say this. If Mr. Hutchinson sues myself or Flayrah, it'll be the worst mistake he ever made in his career.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

When somebody tries to speak for a whole group of people, problems are bound to occur. It's rendered even worse when the speaker isn't even part of the group they're speaking for.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (3 votes)

I don't even have a fursona, let alone a fursuit, and they still blocked me!

PS: Zootopia would've been a significantly better movie if Nick had, at the end, made any other choice but to stay on as a cop.

Your rating: None

"The mission of the National Police Association is to educate supporters of law enforcement in how to help police departments accomplish their goals."
... stepping stones to boost your twitter profile?

Post new comment

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.

About the author

Sonious (Tantroo McNally)read storiescontact (login required)
