Minneapolis Abolish Police

[onlinebiker]

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

So your solution to bad government is more government to control the government...

When that fails perfection you will need to form another branch of government to oversee the overseers....

Lather rinse repeat....

[polymath257]

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

So your solution to bad government is more government to control the government...

When that fails perfection you will need to form another branch of government to oversee the overseers....

Lather rinse repeat....

So what is your proposal to get rid of the bad cops?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

So your solution to bad government is more government to control the government...

When that fails perfection you will need to form another branch of government to oversee the overseers....

Lather rinse repeat....

Governments have overseen governments since there have been governments.

Who said I was aiming for ‘perfection’? I think I made it pretty explicit that the above is not a perfect solution.

So, what’s your take? Propose nothing? Do nothing? Allow police departments to continue to employ and cover for bad cops?

I’d be interested to hear any ideas you might have.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

Speaking of reform, why is it so hard to achieve?

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.

I think a big part is the attitude that I have seen at many levels in many different businesses and agencies and that's the idea of "we've always done it this way".  People tend to be resistant to change...they like their little world to stay as it has always been.  

Working as a contractor in a variety of businesses I have seen pushback against change no matter how small.  Making things more efficient means that there may be fewer people needed to get the job done and no one wants to be the one to go.  Going into companies who are trying to change to updated computer programs reveals people who don't want to put in the effort to learn a new way.  A lot of people know that things could probably be better but they don't want to be pushed into putting in the effort to make that change come about.

If you start changing things from within you nearly always have people who will resist and actively work to thwart the efforts.  Sometimes the only way is to start over again with leadership on down being on board with the vision.

[onlinebiker]

So your solution to bad government is more government to control the government...

When that fails perfection you will need to form another branch of government to oversee the overseers....

Lather rinse repeat....

So what is your proposal to get rid of the bad cops?

Simple.

Use the courts. Convict and incarcerate the ones who commit crimes.


It is simple. I did not say it is easy. 

If you want easy - plan on anarchy.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So what is your proposal to get rid of the bad cops?

Simple.

Use the courts. Convict and incarcerate the ones who commit crimes.


It is simple. I did not say it is easy. 

If you want easy - plan on anarchy.

So, your plan is to us a plan that usually fails? Derek Chauvin had 18 complaints against him in 18 years. Nothing was done about him until he killed a guy and sparked mass protests.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

So your solution to bad government is more government to control the government...

When that fails perfection you will need to form another branch of government to oversee the overseers....

Lather rinse repeat....

Governments have overseen governments since there have been governments.

Who said I was aiming for ‘perfection’? I think I made it pretty explicit that the above is not a perfect solution.

So, what’s your take? Propose nothing? Do nothing? Allow police departments to continue to employ and cover for bad cops?

I’d be interested to hear any ideas you might have.

Boru

Let's see.. You don't want perfection. 

Great.

State in clear numbers what you find allowable tolerance.

How many deaths are the cops allowed per million detentions and/or arrests?

We have already determined (your words) zero (perfection) is not the standard. 

We can work from there.

[Cecelia]

Police Unions are a big part of the problem. I'm very much pro-union, but in these cases the police unions have opposed all and any reasonable reforms. The entire justice system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. And until that happens it doesn't matter how many Derek Chauvins get convicted or charged, because there'll be another one waiting around the corner. If you think this can be fixed by convicting a few cops, you don't understand the problem or how it got that way. If there are to be police, they should serve the community, rather than serving themselves. People love to say "What about the Good Cops?" Well, what about them? They're all part of the broken system. If they're willing to continue being part of that broken system, then are they really 'good cops'? Or are they part of the problem?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Governments have overseen governments since there have been governments.

Who said I was aiming for ‘perfection’? I think I made it pretty explicit that the above is not a perfect solution.

So, what’s your take? Propose nothing? Do nothing? Allow police departments to continue to employ and cover for bad cops?

I’d be interested to hear any ideas you might have.

Boru

Let's see.. You don't want perfection. 

Great.

State in clear numbers what you find allowable tolerance.

How many deaths are the cops allowed per million detentions and/or arrests?

We have already determined (your words) zero (perfection) is not the standard. 

We can work from there.

Perfectionist fallacy, look it up.

Suppose I were in a position to offer you $1000 a week for the rest of your life. Would you reject it because it’s not a million a week?

Your stance seems to be that since we don’t have a perfect solution, there’s no point in trying to make things better.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

Simple.

Use the courts. Convict and incarcerate the ones who commit crimes.


It is simple. I did not say it is easy. 

If you want easy - plan on anarchy.

So, your plan is to us a plan that usually fails? Derek Chauvin had 18 complaints against him in 18 years. Nothing was done about him until he killed a guy and sparked mass protests.

Boru

One complaint a year?

You think that is excessive?

18 CONVICTIONS would be something else.

Deal with people on a daily basis and you will have somebody pissing and moaning once a week
....

---

Let's see.. You don't want perfection. 

Great.

State in clear numbers what you find allowable tolerance.

How many deaths are the cops allowed per million detentions and/or arrests?

We have already determined (your words) zero (perfection) is not the standard. 

We can work from there.

Perfectionist fallacy, look it up.

Suppose I were in a position to offer you $1000 a week for the rest of your life. Would you reject it because it’s not a million a week?

Your stance seems to be that since we don’t have a perfect solution, there’s no point in trying to make things better.

Boru

No even true.

You are the one calling for change.

Tell us what is acceptable level of failure to satisfy you.