(June 8, 2020 at 9:33 am)Eleven Wrote: Speaking of reform, why is it so hard to achieve?

It isn’t. I posted what I think is a workable solution, and it was largely ignored.

Boru

Camden, NJ did the same thing back in 2013. In that case, the county took over policing from the city.

(June 8, 2020 at 9:35 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It isn’t. I posted what I think is a workable solution, and it was largely ignored.

Boru

I also added to my post, although what I added isn't necessarily directed at you.

Nothing good or necessary should be difficult to achieve. Rather, it is ignorant people who want things to remain as it selfishly suits them rather than see a positive change that benefits all.

(June 8, 2020 at 9:00 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The issue isn’t a bad cop here or a bad cop there. The issue is a law enforcement culture that protects those bad cops. Until the system is abolished - or at least rebuilt from the ground up - deaths like Floyd’s will go on and on and on.

Boru

Exactly. The issue is how to make the bad cops accountable. When the system is set up to protect even the bad cops, there is something seriously wrong. ALL good cops should want reform that makes it easier to get rid of the bad ones.

This seems similar to the Catholic Church trying to hide the abuse of kids by moving around the priests involved. If there isn't a way to deal effectively with the bad apples, then the system is broken and needs to be changed.

This is either a very good thing, because the issues surrounding police brutality are so difficult to isolate and fix that nothing short of massive overhauls can fix them, or a very bad thing because we don’t know if we even have a viable replacement. Most likely, it’s both.

(June 8, 2020 at 9:35 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(June 8, 2020 at 9:33 am)Eleven Wrote: Speaking of reform, why is it so hard to achieve?

It isn’t. I posted what I think is a workable solution, and it was largely ignored.

Boru

It is hard, mainly because what is good for the few isn’t good for the all and viceversa. As with any parejto distribution the extremes have to ignore the middle of the distribution to maintain their 1% status. And those 1% have the bulk of the money with which to reform. Luckily, we are seeing that power isn’t in wealth, but in unity and hopefully that will be a continuing trend.

Let’s try this as a reform. The US government creates a new agency (or bureau, or whatever the correct term is) whose sole purpose is to review complaints against individual police officers. Ideally, this group would be staffed by civil rights lawyers.

Let’s say that Officer Smith of the Chicago PD has a complaint lodged against him for excessive force. The department investigates, finds that the complaint is valid and justified and Smith is summarily sacked and is prohibited from ever again working in law enforcement anywhere in the US. Failure to do so results in an immediate and permanent loss of federal money for the department. Civil and criminal charges against Smith proceed as normal. 

In another scenario, the police department investigates Smith and determines the complaint was frivolous and unfounded. The case is immediately referred to the new agency in Washington for review. If they agree with the PD’s assessment, no harm no foul. BUT...if they determine that the complaint is valid (ie, a case of the cops protecting one of their own), the above penalties apply - Smith is sacked, banned from law enforcement for life, charge and tried as appropriate, and the police department loses all federal funding forever.

You could still have police departments, but they would be forced, in the interest of self-preservation - to clean up their act. Would it stop all incidents of police brutality? Of course not. But the number of such cases would drop like a paralyzed falcon and the new system would be seen as evidence that the powers that be are finally taking this seriously. It might even remove the impetus for mass protests.

Boru

Why don't they train the police officers to be like those in London?

(June 8, 2020 at 11:02 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Why don't they train the police officers to be like those in London?

Because the NRA’s not in London to handicap any and all attempts at gun control, thus making it more reasonable for the cops to be unarmed and also give them more freedom to think “maybe this isn’t an actual gun”? Or maybe Britain isn’t quite the behavioral sink that America is?

(June 8, 2020 at 10:48 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Let’s try this as a reform. The US government creates a new agency (or bureau, or whatever the correct term is) whose sole purpose is to review complaints against individual police officers. Ideally, this group would be staffed by civil rights lawyers.

Let’s say that Officer Smith of the Chicago PD has a complaint lodged against him for excessive force. The department investigates, finds that the complaint is valid and justified and Smith is summarily sacked and is prohibited from ever again working in law enforcement anywhere in the US. Failure to do so results in an immediate and permanent loss of federal money for the department. Civil and criminal charges against Smith proceed as normal. 

In another scenario, the police department investigates Smith and determines the complaint was frivolous and unfounded. The case is immediately referred to the new agency in Washington for review. If they agree with the PD’s assessment, no harm no foul. BUT...if they determine that the complaint is valid (ie, a case of the cops protecting one of their own), the above penalties apply - Smith is sacked, banned from law enforcement for life, charge and tried as appropriate, and the police department loses all federal funding forever.

You could still have police departments, but they would be forced, in the interest of self-preservation - to clean up their act. Would it stop all incidents of police brutality? Of course not. But the number of such cases would drop like a paralyzed falcon and the new system would be seen as evidence that the powers that be are finally taking this seriously. It might even remove the impetus for mass protests.

Boru

I would prefer to see graduated steps before loss of funding. Also, it is far from clear this would be constitutional given the 9th and 10th Amendments, which reserve such powers to the states.

On the other hand, if you can get an act of Congress to do this, it *might* just pass muster.