5 ms·

Not just that, but much of the hierarchy above police forces is opaque if it exists at all. The Austin PD chief has come under intense scrutiny for his departm

Not just that, but much of the hierarchy above police forces is opaque if it exists at all. The Austin PD chief has come under intense scrutiny for his department's handling of various arrests and protests over the past few months, and after roughly half of the city council called on him to resign, it was reported that neither the city council or the mayor could legally fire him.[0] The city manager, which is appointed and not elected, has the power to demote the police chief, but the state does not permit a police chief to be terminated. Long story short, none of Austin's leaders have the power to fire the police chief. 0: https://www.texastribune.org/2020/06/18/austin-police-chief-brian-manley-keeping-job-despite-resignation-calls/ https://www.texastribune.org/2020/06/18/austin-police-chief-... edit: added reporting

erichocean 6y ago
County sheriffs are similarly "protected", in that they have to be voted out in most cases in the next election.
- sukilot 6y ago
  That's fine. They are accountable to the electorate who can recall them.
  - closeparen 6y ago
    It’s less fine when the electorate consistently delivers a mandate to brutalize a minority population, or just isn’t paying enough attention to such down-ticket races to care.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      Criminals are a minority population (by number and temperament, not by race or anything). There structurally can't be any unbiased mechanism for effectively protecting minority populations or the criminals would use them. Look at the taxes-are-theft crowd; they think the electorate consistently delivers a mandate to brutalize their finances. They aren't totally wrong. They'd love a mechanism to avoid arrest if they don't pay taxes. So fine or otherwise, it is probably systemically optimum.
      - FzguLzLA5BDxVC 6y ago
        What does this have to do with systematic abuse of specific groups? Criminals are people who break laws, they aren't a cultural group. They aren't some collection of people that are oppressed. I'd be impressed if you could show me some data showing that criminals (not prisoners) are systematically abused. What are you arguing for?
        roenxi 6y ago
        Thread ancestor said that the electorate was consistently handing out mandates to "brutalize a minority population". The electorate's power to hand out such mandates is also the power that it uses to define who criminals are. There can't be a check on that power without also opening up a huge can of worms for general law enforcement. > Criminals are people who break laws, they aren't a cultural group. If a majority hands out a mandate to oppress a minority group they can probably define the minority group to be criminals. In fact, there is a persuasive argument that that is happening.
    - erichocean 6y ago
      > or just isn’t paying enough attention to such down-ticket races to care The Open Society Foundations has had a ton of success in changing how crimes are prosecuted at the local level by pouring money into district attorney elections across the country. That's a major reason the BLM protests have been successful: most people are not being prosecuted because the local DA is a "friendly." Since many people don't pay attention, money spent at this level has been very effective. Presumably the OSF could target county Sheriffs races next, which would stop those cases from even reaching the DA's desk. Then the police wouldn't need to be abolished per se, they could simply stop enforcing laws that disproportionally target minorities, while simultaneously ratcheting up enforcement on the people who voted for those laws.
pjc50 6y ago
Hence "defund the police": they may not be able to fire the police chief, but they can give him an ultimatum to quit or have the budget from which his salary is paid reduced to zero.
- klyrs 6y ago
  > ... or have the budget from which his salary is paid reduced to zero. That doesn't sound legal -- at the least, he could sue the city/state for those wages
  - ChristianBundy 6y ago
    On what grounds could "he" sue?
- pc86 6y ago
  That's not even remotely how it works. You can't legally do that.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    The city could absolutely cut the police budget to $0.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      Can do all sorts of things, but when somebody turns up with a gun there has to be some physical mechanism to stop them from seizing control of the local supermarket. The city can defund the entire police force, but it will have to set up or allow an alternative which will end up the same as the current one if the incentives don't change. Resetting the entire system every time something goes wrong isn't really a viable strategy. It'll work every so often.
      - ChristianBundy 6y ago
        Of course. This isn't controversial. If someone takes a bunch of hostages then we need people who can de-escalate and rescue them, but that isn't what most cops spend their time doing every day.

erichocean 6y ago

County sheriffs are similarly "protected", in that they have to be voted out in most cases in the next election.

sukilot 6y ago
That's fine. They are accountable to the electorate who can recall them.
- closeparen 6y ago
  It’s less fine when the electorate consistently delivers a mandate to brutalize a minority population, or just isn’t paying enough attention to such down-ticket races to care.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Criminals are a minority population (by number and temperament, not by race or anything). There structurally can't be any unbiased mechanism for effectively protecting minority populations or the criminals would use them. Look at the taxes-are-theft crowd; they think the electorate consistently delivers a mandate to brutalize their finances. They aren't totally wrong. They'd love a mechanism to avoid arrest if they don't pay taxes. So fine or otherwise, it is probably systemically optimum.
    - FzguLzLA5BDxVC 6y ago
      What does this have to do with systematic abuse of specific groups? Criminals are people who break laws, they aren't a cultural group. They aren't some collection of people that are oppressed. I'd be impressed if you could show me some data showing that criminals (not prisoners) are systematically abused. What are you arguing for?
      - roenxi 6y ago
        Thread ancestor said that the electorate was consistently handing out mandates to "brutalize a minority population". The electorate's power to hand out such mandates is also the power that it uses to define who criminals are. There can't be a check on that power without also opening up a huge can of worms for general law enforcement. > Criminals are people who break laws, they aren't a cultural group. If a majority hands out a mandate to oppress a minority group they can probably define the minority group to be criminals. In fact, there is a persuasive argument that that is happening.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    > or just isn’t paying enough attention to such down-ticket races to care The Open Society Foundations has had a ton of success in changing how crimes are prosecuted at the local level by pouring money into district attorney elections across the country. That's a major reason the BLM protests have been successful: most people are not being prosecuted because the local DA is a "friendly." Since many people don't pay attention, money spent at this level has been very effective. Presumably the OSF could target county Sheriffs races next, which would stop those cases from even reaching the DA's desk. Then the police wouldn't need to be abolished per se, they could simply stop enforcing laws that disproportionally target minorities, while simultaneously ratcheting up enforcement on the people who voted for those laws.

pjc50 6y ago

Hence "defund the police": they may not be able to fire the police chief, but they can give him an ultimatum to quit or have the budget from which his salary is paid reduced to zero.

klyrs 6y ago
> ... or have the budget from which his salary is paid reduced to zero. That doesn't sound legal -- at the least, he could sue the city/state for those wages
- ChristianBundy 6y ago
  On what grounds could "he" sue?
pc86 6y ago
That's not even remotely how it works. You can't legally do that.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  The city could absolutely cut the police budget to $0.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Can do all sorts of things, but when somebody turns up with a gun there has to be some physical mechanism to stop them from seizing control of the local supermarket. The city can defund the entire police force, but it will have to set up or allow an alternative which will end up the same as the current one if the incentives don't change. Resetting the entire system every time something goes wrong isn't really a viable strategy. It'll work every so often.
    - ChristianBundy 6y ago
      Of course. This isn't controversial. If someone takes a bunch of hostages then we need people who can de-escalate and rescue them, but that isn't what most cops spend their time doing every day.