3 ms·

Okay so what would you propose as the mechanism for focusing on that primary issue?

parsimo2010 6y ago
For a start the media should focus on exposing inadequately prosecuted cops that broke the law instead of focusing on qualified immunity after the system already failed. One way to actually fix the problem is external investigation of police complaints and the power to press charges separate from the DA. The vast majority of the time the people investigating a police shooting work in the same building as the shooters, and are often police themselves. Then the DA, which works with the police on most of their cases, ends up being the one that has to prosecute them. These should both be considered conflicts of interest. We need people that aren't friends with the cops to have the power to do something. The investigators should be limited to bringing criminal charges to police that must be tried in court to prevent abuses of their power (otherwise we risk a situation of "who watches the watchmen of the watchmen"). The idea of special prosecutors exists, but for some reason isn't applied to police matters. Police unions are a problem now, but only because they have the power to fight a police chief over employment terms and threaten to strike. They would not be able to fight the prosecutor from an external organization. Let them fight the police chief over administrative actions and discipline for minor violations all they want (that's what unions are for) as long as punishment for crimes is handled by someone else. This is exactly how it works with every other union- they can fight employers on all sorts of matters, but they don't get a say once a member commits a crime, and police unions should be the same. Also, with police matters, a lack of evidence should be viewed as suspicious, and possibly considered as supporting evidence for a complaint. The police should wear cameras but they shouldn't manage the recordings. Body cameras should be allowed to be turned off to deal with sensitive issues, but those occasions should be limited and reviewable. If a cop is about to go talk to a rape victim, then the footage leading up that point should be reviewed. If a body camera was turned off when someone filed a complaint about assault, it should be pretty easy to look at the footage leading up to that point and determine if the camera was turned off for an appropriate reason, or if the cop turned the camera off so they could crack some skulls without being recorded. Excuses like "I forgot to turn my camera back on" can be handled with indicator lights and audible tones or having the camera turn back on after a while. Excuses like "my camera stopped working" can be checked to see if the police officer submitted a service request. None of these issues are controversial. The controversial part is that it costs money to set up an oversight investigation. Usually a politician running with a platform like this is doomed to lose an election because they are talking about raising taxes and they won't have the support of the police union. But if there were ever a time to get this implemented it would be now.
- rabidrat 6y ago
  First, "the media" should do something, but we can't legislate that. Secondly, "the power to press charges separate from the DA"--this is a stronger form of getting rid of qualified immunity. We already have the power to file "civil" suits, and qualified immunity removes that power in the case of e.g. police. Giving people the power to file criminal charges themselves would be a huge deal. Maybe it is the right thing ultimately, but I think it's obvious how it could be abused; an abusive billionaire could legally threaten their opponents with imprisonment (or worse). Thirdly, thinking that bodycam reform would be any kind of useful measure, is quite naive, when you look at how many of these recent abuses are recorded on independent cameras, with the police fully aware they are being recorded, and yet they still act as they do, knowing they have this "qualified immunity" to protect them. I'm not saying that you're completely wrong; some of these reforms may help things a bit. But they don't strike at the root of the issue, and the ship for seeing if more moderate reforms will work has already sailed. The police and cities etc have had literally decades to clean up their act, and in cities across America, they have failed. Time's up.
  - breischl 6y ago
    GP did not suggest letting private citizens bring criminal charges, he suggested having a separate and independent arm of government that provides oversight of the police have that power. That's a very different thing, and at seems at least plausible way forward. At the very least it helps to address the conflicts of interest that he identified (correctly, IMO).
    - rabidrat 6y ago
      Thank you for the clarification, I misunderstood that point. Whatever law-enforcement entities we will have to replace the police, should certainly have independent oversight, I agree. However, for the current police regime, it is still too little, too late.
- credit_guy 6y ago
  Browsing wikipedia I found the concept of "Civilian police oversight agency" [1]. For example the City of Minneapolis has the "Office of Police Conduct Review" [2]. So it looks like the institutions you are alluding to already exist, they probably need to be empowered more somehow. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_police_oversight_agency#List_of_places_with_civilian_oversight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_police_oversight_agen... [2] http://www.minneapolismn.gov/civilrights/policereview/ http://www.minneapolismn.gov/civilrights/policereview/

parsimo2010 6y ago

For a start the media should focus on exposing inadequately prosecuted cops that broke the law instead of focusing on qualified immunity after the system already failed. One way to actually fix the problem is external investigation of police complaints and the power to press charges separate from the DA. The vast majority of the time the people investigating a police shooting work in the same building as the shooters, and are often police themselves. Then the DA, which works with the police on most of their cases, ends up being the one that has to prosecute them. These should both be considered conflicts of interest. We need people that aren't friends with the cops to have the power to do something. The investigators should be limited to bringing criminal charges to police that must be tried in court to prevent abuses of their power (otherwise we risk a situation of "who watches the watchmen of the watchmen"). The idea of special prosecutors exists, but for some reason isn't applied to police matters. Police unions are a problem now, but only because they have the power to fight a police chief over employment terms and threaten to strike. They would not be able to fight the prosecutor from an external organization. Let them fight the police chief over administrative actions and discipline for minor violations all they want (that's what unions are for) as long as punishment for crimes is handled by someone else. This is exactly how it works with every other union- they can fight employers on all sorts of matters, but they don't get a say once a member commits a crime, and police unions should be the same. Also, with police matters, a lack of evidence should be viewed as suspicious, and possibly considered as supporting evidence for a complaint. The police should wear cameras but they shouldn't manage the recordings. Body cameras should be allowed to be turned off to deal with sensitive issues, but those occasions should be limited and reviewable. If a cop is about to go talk to a rape victim, then the footage leading up that point should be reviewed. If a body camera was turned off when someone filed a complaint about assault, it should be pretty easy to look at the footage leading up to that point and determine if the camera was turned off for an appropriate reason, or if the cop turned the camera off so they could crack some skulls without being recorded. Excuses like "I forgot to turn my camera back on" can be handled with indicator lights and audible tones or having the camera turn back on after a while. Excuses like "my camera stopped working" can be checked to see if the police officer submitted a service request. None of these issues are controversial. The controversial part is that it costs money to set up an oversight investigation. Usually a politician running with a platform like this is doomed to lose an election because they are talking about raising taxes and they won't have the support of the police union. But if there were ever a time to get this implemented it would be now.

rabidrat 6y ago
First, "the media" should do something, but we can't legislate that. Secondly, "the power to press charges separate from the DA"--this is a stronger form of getting rid of qualified immunity. We already have the power to file "civil" suits, and qualified immunity removes that power in the case of e.g. police. Giving people the power to file criminal charges themselves would be a huge deal. Maybe it is the right thing ultimately, but I think it's obvious how it could be abused; an abusive billionaire could legally threaten their opponents with imprisonment (or worse). Thirdly, thinking that bodycam reform would be any kind of useful measure, is quite naive, when you look at how many of these recent abuses are recorded on independent cameras, with the police fully aware they are being recorded, and yet they still act as they do, knowing they have this "qualified immunity" to protect them. I'm not saying that you're completely wrong; some of these reforms may help things a bit. But they don't strike at the root of the issue, and the ship for seeing if more moderate reforms will work has already sailed. The police and cities etc have had literally decades to clean up their act, and in cities across America, they have failed. Time's up.
- breischl 6y ago
  GP did not suggest letting private citizens bring criminal charges, he suggested having a separate and independent arm of government that provides oversight of the police have that power. That's a very different thing, and at seems at least plausible way forward. At the very least it helps to address the conflicts of interest that he identified (correctly, IMO).
  - rabidrat 6y ago
    Thank you for the clarification, I misunderstood that point. Whatever law-enforcement entities we will have to replace the police, should certainly have independent oversight, I agree. However, for the current police regime, it is still too little, too late.
credit_guy 6y ago
Browsing wikipedia I found the concept of "Civilian police oversight agency" [1]. For example the City of Minneapolis has the "Office of Police Conduct Review" [2]. So it looks like the institutions you are alluding to already exist, they probably need to be empowered more somehow. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_police_oversight_agency#List_of_places_with_civilian_oversight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_police_oversight_agen... [2] http://www.minneapolismn.gov/civilrights/policereview/ http://www.minneapolismn.gov/civilrights/policereview/