Jump to content

Recommended Posts

They don't need military gear and if they want to be paid like professionals they need to lose their jobs go to prison after murder/assault/corruption/etc like a professional would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a low bar should be set for police officers and even entire departments if they're shown to be too quick with violence. When that bar is hit, take away their guns until they can prove they should have them. And I understand that many police officers would immediately quit if they had their guns removed but that would force the community to either accept an unarmed officer/force or bring in better officers. 

wooden-gun.jpg?w=234&h=200

Or have the gun secured in their vehicle that requires a public reporting and investigation every time it's released.

Now this situation in MN shows that guns alone aren't the problem but a violent cop without a gun may not be so quick to over react with physical force if he doesn't have the gun on his side as backup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Sadly, distributing tanks and humvees to local police department is a much more efficient political transaction than establishing assertive community based mental health care programs. Local police get some new toys, DOD draws down the old stock, General Dynamics gets a contract to replenish. Everybody wins. 

Except for the schizophrenic guy with spotty medication adherence who has a break infront of the 7/11 and scare some soccer mom.  Maybe the cops crack his skull, maybe they just give him a ride down to the closest intake.  Maybe a little bit of both. But General Dynamics gets paid. Always. 

Dude, are you in the mental health field? Seriously, that's a very educated breakdown and I like the post. I would mention that "much more efficient political transaction" is something that disturbs me in particular. Why is this still the case? Hell, numerous jail diversion programs have demonstrated cost savings. The Bexar County project was around 15 years ago, so the Great State of Texas should have implemented it and made it a conservative thing. I don't know if it's R vs D, or if it's something more like building more jail space takes care of "General Dynamics" or whatever. I just wish it would change. At least state Medicaid programs are figuring out that you can save $ by spending higher for long-acting injectable antipsychotics, which reduces the number of 7/11 scenarios you described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care about defunding all that much as a punitive measure, but the spending itself needs to radically change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I heard someone on NPR commenting that we reflexively respond to notions like "the city has grown, we need more cops and more funding," when there's not much correlation between the two, not even accounting for "increased productivity" by cops.

Or the similar refrain, "We have 50 fewer patrol officers than x period, it's a crisis," without examining actual data.

Fear is an ever-reliable political motivator.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How illegal would it be to make civil lawsuits for violence by police officers get paid out from their pension fund? I’ve given no thought to it before now. I feel like that would give pressure to both the individual and collective group to respond with less recklessness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand their budgets enough to know if they are spending a lot of it on tactical equipment. But they ought to look at spending more on their actual salaries to attract better educated people and do a better job of screening who can be hired. Maybe it would make sense to hire graduates with Human Services degrees or those with certification in mental health studies. I obviously don't know what I am talking about but that would be a good start. Instead of hiring people that have military backgrounds that might make great soldiers, they need people that have a greater understanding of human psychology.  I don't think they are doing that right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you have a system where civil suits against police abuses are paid out of their general pension fund?  An amount not to exceed 5% per annum so as not to deplete the overall corpus?  Instead of the cop cliche of, "I'm two months away from my pension!" while killing a criminal.....it would be more like, "Hey Sergeant, stop killing that guy.  Your dumbass is gonna cost us our pensions."  Right now, civil suits just come from taxpayers so there's not a huge incentive to get your partner to stop murdering black people at lunchtime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

How illegal would it be to make civil lawsuits for violence by police officers get paid out from their pension fund? I’ve given no thought to it before now. I feel like that would give pressure to both the individual and collective group to respond with less recklessness. 

Here's how you might be able to do it.

Statewide legislation (and it would have to be on the state level) requiring that, upon the expiration of any existing contractual obligations (so, if City X has an enforceable contract to 2025 with the union, then it has to complete that obligation), a political subdivision is legally prohibited from funding a police pension without a requirement that all judgments against officers or the department for misconduct are payable from the pension, AND any shortfalls in the pension resulting from such judgments are not the responsibility of the political subdivision.

So, you let current contracts run out.  All future contracts include that requirement -- damages paid out of pension, and the resulting shortfall is on the PD, not the funding gov't entity.

Just note the interesting downside/upside to that: you will stop seeing suits settled for some period of time.  The union will fight every claim tooth and nail.  Which will work fine for them.....until it doesn't.  When they start getting popped with $50 million jury verdicts, they'll start to feel it.

EDIT: thinking it through, there may be a federal law element shielding pensions from judgments, so the way around that could be one of two things.  1) Amend federal law to allow police pensions to be hit by judgments, or 2) the new state law would require that the judgment be the first funds paid out of the political subdivision's contributions to the pension fund.  So, e.g., if City X is contractually required to contribute $50 million this year to the police pension, and there are $20 million in judgments/settlements to be paid by the PD, City X pays the first $20 million towards those judgments/settlements, and then only owes the pension fund $30 million.  The pension takes a $20 million hit to the municipal contribution in the year in which the obligation is paid.

Edited by Brisketexan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The research says:
Body cams don’t reduce police violence.
Better training and education doesn’t help.

Better and more restrictive policies regarding police use of force does help, as does demilitarization.

Police union contracts can play a big part too.

Predictive analytics can be used to identify bad cops before they do something bad (Minority Report style).

More community outreach organizations reduce crime rates.

We need non-911 alternatives to incidents such as with the mentally ill.

More DOJ investigations of police departments.




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Education/training can work if they're serious, but I sincerely doubt what happens now is serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, all of what Buzzrock cites looks to be spot-on, and consistent with both the data and common sense.

I also like adding in the layer of making it much easier for the state LEO licensing board to suspend/revoke a LEO certificate (which means that you can't act as a peace officer at all in that state).  No need for internal PD suspension or termination, no need for court judgments.  Just a judgment by the state board that you are not qualified to be a licensed peace office.

That's the way that other professions handle it.  And I know that lawyers get a bad rap on this, but you ought to pick up a copy of the Texas Bar Journal one day.  It has (or used to have -- I never read it on paper anymore) an entire section on disciplinary proceedings.  There would sometimes be PAGES of attorneys who had their license suspended or revoked.  It happens, with real frequency.

As far as I know, Texas peace officer certifications are administratively suspended/revoked about as often as A&M wins actual national titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my SIL's fiance is a black police officer.  He brings up a good point.  He was trained at this rural, nearly all-white police academy in Kansas.  A lot of those guys are going to get hired in Wichita, Kansas City metro area, Topeka, etc.  They were trained in all-white conditions to deal with nearly all-white situations.  Then you're gonna take these rural simpletons and drop them in the middle of hispanic/black neighborhoods with zero fucking training for dealing with people of color. 

You can't take a litigator and have them just magically start practicing family law without some re-training . You can't be a pediatrist and just start practicing gynecology.  but we train so many of our police officers one specific way and then drop them in the middle of all-night shifts in neighborhoods of color, poverty, and drugs and wonder why they can't be perfect community liaisons?  A huge portion of them are uncultured white guys with few career options who've never spent much time around minorities (police are only about 30% ex-military, despite anecdotes to the contrary and those are the type we need on patrol since they've served alongside people of color)..  And we get them all wound up with shitty training and powerful weapons and let them work the night shift in the South Bronx.  Not a great model, Bob 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article: The other piece of accountability is about internal disciplinary processes, and prosecutors holding [officers] accountable. There’s tension between police unions and police departments. The state civil service code has protections to keep officers from being held accountable. The police unions got those installed over the years. For example, the 180-day rule, where [officers] can’t be disciplined after 180 days after the time something happens. And there are rules that say officers get to view their investigative file and body camera footage before an investigator talks to them. Even if they are suspected of murder. Who else gets that? Can you imagine anyone else accused of murder, saying “Before we interrogate you, you can see everything in the file and the video and talk to your lawyer and craft a story”? No one but cops gets that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm down for a dramatic restructuring of police training from the moment someone signs up.

If you can't teach an old dog new tricks, at least start teaching the puppies the right tricks from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm down for a dramatic restructuring of police training from the moment someone signs up.

If you can't teach an old dog new tricks, at least start teaching the puppies the right tricks from the beginning.

If we're going with the dog analogy, owners (police departments) are held liable when their dog (officer) bites someone. The current PD liability has no teeth. 

Also as sad as it is to put down dogs, when they bust dog fighting rings those dogs are put down because of the low chance of rehabilitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me last week: We can't defund the police, so

Me this week: This message is for Councilwoman Smith. I'm calling to demand we drastically reallocate police resources...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The logic and intention behind this is great but the title will just create huge anti-change support from idiots. Defund the police? And have a lawless society? Are you insane? 
 

Fund Change, Protect and Serve, Defund Racism, 

They need a better name 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the question I continue to have: why do we have armed police patrolling the city?  Firefighters don't patrol the city looking for fires.  They hang out at the station until someone calls them.  That improves response times.  Why don't police do the same thing?

To the extent you need police to patrol (e.g., traffic), they shouldn't be armed.  Any number of countries have unarmed law enforcement (including England and Wales).  We even have it--parking enforcement is usually unarmed.  You can have traffic police who are unarmed patrolling the highways.  But leave the real police in their stations until they are called.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 of 10 Austin city council members have spoken out and said they no longer support Manley, the police chief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first topic that come to the “mind” of many when posed this topic/question is...
“I can protect myself and my family from eminent harm”, but can you? The law enforcement officers (city, county, state, and federal) are only there when prompted, then the waiting game clock begins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had Jose Canseco becoming a futurist on your 2020 bingo card, you win the pot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

We clearly can’t trust the cops or their unions to root out racist cops in the department.

Question for counsel.

Why aren’t you lazy bastards expanding the enforcement of the Brady doctrine, a pretrial discovery rule that prosecutors must disclose to the defense any material exculpatory evidence, and the related Giglio doctrine, which requires disclosure of any such evidence that could be used to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses, including police officers?  

Either you’re stupid, indifferent, complicit, or you don’t know why Mark Fuhrman is famous.  Pick one.

Edited by LongestHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HRSchenker said:

I'd rather eliminate qualified immunity than defund the police. Did you know that you can give the police consent to search your home, let them blow it up, and you can't sue them for damages

Why not both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intuitively, to me everything rests on the idea that the police are us v. them in a battle against the bad guys.  Only through a new attitude of proactive preventative police work will this change.

Good work to, everyone, on making sure we are the most armed society in the world.  That certainly makes the idea of sending security officers into the field unarmed an easy to digest idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LongestHorn said:

We clearly can’t trust the cops or their unions to root out racist cops in the department.

Question for counsel.

Why aren’t you lazy bastards expanding the enforcement of the Brady doctrine, a pretrial discovery rule that prosecutors must disclose to the defense any material exculpatory evidence, and the related Giglio doctrine, which requires disclosure of any such evidence that could be used to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses, including police officers?  

Either you’re stupid, indifferent, complicit, or you don’t know why Mark Fuhrman is famous.  Pick one.

Do you think lawyers just snap their fingers and expand constitutional doctrine?

And, pray tell, how would you have them expanded?

I can virtually guarantee you that any decent lawyer that discovers (that can be difficult) a Brady violation or related pushes it to the absolute hilt.

Also, today, most decent DA offices (notably, however, not the DOJ/FBI) have an "open file" policy, meaning anything they got you get, and rendering such a violation nearly impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, maninblack said:

5889d8735e5959e609c1605db2388d43.jpg

I think at most I might disagree with 2 or 3 things on there. If that list is pass fail, all or nothing, take it or leave it I would take it all day long and twice on Sunday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Do you think lawyers just snap their fingers and expand constitutional doctrine?

And, pray tell, how would you have them expanded?

I can virtually guarantee you that any decent lawyer that discovers (that can be difficult) a Brady violation or related pushes it to the absolute hilt.

Also, today, most decent DA offices (notably, however, not the DOJ/FBI) have an "open file" policy, meaning anything they got you get, and rendering such a violation nearly impossible.

Which was now it was in my county where I interned and what I was joining you in arguing about in the Flynn discussion. It’s not just the police that need to be cut down to size, all government files should be open season totally and completely. I don’t need or want the government lawyer to be Perry Mason and outlasted the other guy and I damn sure don’t want them cutting corners of ethical responsibilities to get convictions. 

Edited by Wulaw Horn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, maninblack said:

5889d8735e5959e609c1605db2388d43.jpg

“Teach homeless their rights.”

Surly: spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion. I've been concerned with the militarization of police over the last 20 or so years, when I started paying attention. The legal doctrine of qualified immunity, of which I'm embarrassingly ignorant, seems to go too far.

But I'm very concerned with some of the use of force I've seen on the television lately. The elderly man being assaulted by police was the last straw. And then the Emergency Response Team resigns in protest because the officers were "following orders"? What the fuck? They were ordered to assault him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, LongestHorn said:

To be completely fair,  a lot of criminal defense work is carried out by counsel appointed for indigents.  Some really are lazy, some are just spread too thin. But a fair amount of constitutional disclosure obligations probably get violated under their watch.  And, lawyers can be lazy just like anyone else.

The solution there doesn't lie so much with the lawyers as the indigent defense system. Texas' with judicial elections, is particularly problematic as judges dole out appointments to contributors routinely. https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2020/06/pay-to-play-campaign-finance-and-the-incentive-gap-in-the-sixth-amendments-right-to-counsel.html

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol yeah the answer is definitely private police forces to perform the absolutely essential duty of driving around and fucking with people w/ impunity.

How does this theoretical private police pull in revenue, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Police unions should be drastically altered, and only negotiate on compensation matters only. Instead they create contracts that shelter bad police officers. A quick review of the HPD contract allows an officer 48 hours notice before they’re interrogated for misconduct. And they’re allowed to see all of the evidence and witness statements before that interrogation.

im ok giving them enough notice to allow a lawyer or rep to assist them but why give them the time and evidence to create their story. And I’m sure some misconduct accusations are bs but the police union seems to prioritize protecting bad cops over good policing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...