If you've ever read Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451, then you'll probably see where I'm going with this. Fire departments don't drive around wasting taxpayer money looking to cite people for possible causes that could lead to a fire (or reading), rather we only call them when needed. Perhaps this approach could apply to police departments? Essentially, you don't talk to a cop unless you call one. You don't get cited unless a citizen calls you in. Let the people be, and if someone sees something they don't like and it just so happens what they're seeing or experiencing is against the law then sure, call it in at that point... ??? Do we really need cops to deal with traffic violations, ect?...
if bill mahr is involved in the discussion i wont waste any time of mine listening. bill mahr is a tool, he's a hand puppet. he used to do comedy crap like jimmy fallon except nowhere the talent of jimmy. mahr's biggest contribution is a big mouth with an opinion for sale. he can whistle Dixie or the Battle Hymn of the Republic with equal vigor. just pay him.
It's what Radley Balco says, a writer for the Washington post, that I think is interesting and relevant. What about fighting crime like we do fires? Modeling the police dept more like the fire dept?
It is an interesting thought, but I believe an involved community policing approach ( with the right personalities/training) can be much more effective.
i was just listening to Antonio Brown, Atlanta City Councilman, and he said (sic), "when are 'we' (meaning people of color and minorities) going to do something about change? Atlanta has been under minority leadership for 40 years! when are WE going to hold ourselves accountable and hold the elected officials accountable?" , along with other spot on recommendations. HE wants to he held accountable to his constituents for current policing policy etc. and HE wants support to help change it. on msnbc. he just said it. imagine that. a politician stepping up to the plate to take his share of responsibility for not insisting Atlanta "policies" towards minorities were changed last year, 3 yrs ago, 10 yrs ago, 40 yrs ago! so what is the real root cause of the policing policies? it's the elected officials and chain of command NOT doing their jobs. there's no need to disband police forces in cities or the nation. "we" the people are speaking loudly and in unison now. let's see what happens. let's see if "we" force elected and appointed positions of leadership to do their job.
I'd like that too. I'd like to see the citizens being the one's that are in charge of charging or initiating arrests though and the officer just facilitates. But having in the community and amongst the people isn't necessarily bad imo if this type of citizen power were granted. I'd like to see the power put in the peoples hands. Congress and other legislative bodies make laws but if your community never calls in its people for disobedience of the laws then they essentially have the ability to locally decriminalize certain things that they don't see fit. Rights are still protected as anyone that decides to call in an unlawful act has the right, but the cop is essentially just there to keep the peace and facilitate the people by enforcing the law when asked to. Not everyone will agree with every single law and if no one is objecting then where is the need to intervene?
i have a very strong feeling there will be many public officials in cities and states across the msm's news streams crowing for more accountability and change at the state and local level from the people elected into and appointed to positions who's job it is to protect and serve their communities, and I'm not talking about the street cops, i'm talking about mayors, chiefs, council members, governors, unions. if you're living in the US, the zip code where you're living has elected officials, and appointed officials made by elected officials, and yada, yada., that enforce policy and laws that directly affect your day-to-day lives. THAT is where change starts - with each of you and your local community. dont wait for someone else to do it. step up! those people are accountable to you.
These two ideas are both in existence though not quite the way you describe. The population does have the right to use citizens arrest, in fact that's what originally our country had. The idea was a self-policing population with citizens making the arrest and delivering the accused to the local jail to be put in front of a jury of their peers. As to not enforcing laws we disagree with, that also exists in the form of jury nullification, many people don't realize it exists but a jury can find a person not guilty and acquit them no matter how blatantly obvious it was that they broke the law if the jury either disagrees with the law or feels that the person in that specific instance shouldn't be punished for whatever law was broken. I think that what you are describing simply takes both the existing functions of citizens arrest and jury nullification one step further and in fact takes policing a huge step backwards to what it was originally SUPPOSED to be. Even some sheriff's departments are a little militant these days but by in large (Besides the traffic citation bs) sheriff's generally operate similarly to what has been put fourth, they intervene mostly only when called upon, their leadership (The sheriff) is held accountable to his responsibilities by the voters, and people who are corrupt can be tossed out (Usually, there is corruption that runs too deep in a few small towns) Really in my opinion we should "remove" the police forces and replace them with elected sheriff's, or basically in reality that would be simply expanding the current sheriff department's jurisdiction to within city limits where it ends in most places these days. Obviously the sheriff's would need to be bolster in budget and personnel but the police unions are the main problem in my opinion, they shield bad cops and even force departments to re-hire cops that were terminated due to corruption or violence because they have that kind of power, even if the chief of that department doesn't want that person on their force. Police forces should not be private security run by the mayor and backed by a union. That's the bullshit that has gotten us into the current circumstances.
good thoughts @Jemgomez. whatever policy decisions ultimately govern the people in their towns and cities the "selection process" standard for being any kind of leo needs to be raised to a level that includes psychiatric evaluation, and the standard of "one strike you're out forever" policy; if a leo violates "the standard" they're blacklisted from ever having another job carrying a badge and and a gun. only a well balanced individual with no history of violence or criminal behavior should ever have a badge and a gun. i think the military police have higher standards than a lot of cities and towns.
Indeed there needs to be standards, unfortunately a lot of the people attracted to the police forces are those with either little other life options due to their decisions, or bullies who want to continue being bullies. There are a lot of good people who do it because hey want to serve their community, those are the ones that need recruiting. I've seen my share of corruption within the MP community while I was in, but yeah I'd agree that the standards are much higher because the punishment for doing shit you're not suppose to do is SWIFT and applied fairly uniformly according to military law (UCMJ) up to and including dishonorable discharge and prison time in a military prison.
@Jemgomez if you were in the military i'm sure you're aware of how difficult it is to be selected for an elite unit - take a pick from any service branch - and then be able to maintain a level of operational efficiency which leaves no room for and has no mercy for breaking protocol or bad judgement. punishment is indeed swift and final. something similar should be in place for anyone carrying a badge and a gun. it would solve a lot of future problems i think. poor judgement should not be allowed or tolerated behind a shield and a pistol.
Yes jury nullification needs to be common knowledge! The People Still have plenty of power, they are just ignorant. I used to promote it a lot on here years back, but I'll bring it back to attention, people really need to learn LAW, from the very fundamentals.
@Jemgomez I'd have to agree with much of what has been said. To a degree we already have what's been outlined, its the extra over the top sniffing around, and training to sniff around and drum up charges when no citizen is complaining, that is what I'm saying should stop. I'd also not leave it to the citizen but rather have the cop in charge of subduing and bringing in the transgressor. I agree that a jury essentialy serves a similar role in decriminilizing, but you still are arrested, jailed, forced to bond out, forced to pay for a public defender, ect. It disproportionately disadvantages the poor. You're entered into the system and ontop of possibly missing work ect for the scenario, I believe it shows up on your background report which follows you and creates issues attaining future work ect. Having an arrest record may bias the leo doing the stop, the DA, or the court as well. Imo there's also a different stigma associated about deciding someone's fate while they are in chains and an orange jumpsuit, compared to a citizen on the street calling in someone in plain clothes doing something in public that they not like. Imo how they get started in the incaceral cycle is significant. If you're poor the odds are not in your favor. Rather than a system of drumming up as many charges or violations possible, as a means of increasing the odds of conviction or imbalancing the plea negotiations, charge for the obvious and quit tipping the scales. They prosecute what they think they can win and how much money you have is a large part of that. Somehow that needs to be mitigated. Arresting the rich is not mitigation when they get off later. Arresting the poor tends to hurt them more so because they aren't getting off later, and now have a record. I believe putting the power of instigating an arrest solely in the hands of the people would be a step towards decreasing incarecation inequality. Rather than giving cops authority to assume the desires of the community and arresting first, and then later asking the community whether they cared about said infraction to begin with after hardships are endured and acrued; how about arresting only as originally desired by the people. It would reduce costs and lower taxes imo too. Cops are supposed to protect and serve the people. Imo, most times right now they act as a force oppositional to the people. I don't think you'd see much anti cop sentiment if they were only involved when asked to be. I think you should create laws to protect peoples rights and ensure equality ect, but imo let people do their own thing and if theres confrontation and things being done illegally that the community disagrees with then sure call up the cops to deal with the confrontation and the law being broken, but otherwise there's just no need to jail, imprison, fine, ect unless there's a disturbance which the community dislikes. Imo when you go out looking for crime, and when the courts favor wealthy defendants over poor defendants then you create what we have now. Lots of non violent offenders being locked up which are disproportionately people of color and poor people. The fire department doesn't go around looking for fires, but if they get a call they deal with the fire. I think if we modeled the police department more like the fire department, separated and checked authority by using random citizens as a way of unbiasing the arrest selection, youd essentially be employing citizens for free, so your number of eyeballs would increase but the cost for that surveillance would be zero. You essentially increase your police force (for free), and simultaneously the actual arrests are more reflective of what the community values/desires. It creates a less biased policing imo. People can already call things in, but the going out and charging and arresting people (without prior complaint from the public) in a community that you most likely arent apart of, helps create a large part of the imbalance observed today imo. EDIT: Looks like I'm more or less just repeating myself. I didn't realize I essentially already outlined this previously, but because this comment is so long, I guess I'll leave It up lolol
There should be a community board to weigh each situation. Police should be represented but not dominate.
They should be held accountable to the legal system, not to citizens with no criminal justice or legal training.