13 ms·

It's crazy to me that in 2020, there isn't comprehensive, mandatory Federal tracking of police-involved shootings. There's no reason that this data shouldn't be

It's crazy to me that in 2020, there isn't comprehensive, mandatory Federal tracking of police-involved shootings. There's no reason that this data shouldn't be mandated to be aggregated and researched, other than to continue propagating a culture of secrecy. From the FBI's Use-of-Force data collection site[0]: > Is it mandatory for law enforcement agencies to contribute to this data collection? > The FBI has no legal authority to mandate reporting of any data to the UCR Program. The FBI is working closely with the major law enforcement agency organizations and the CJIS APB, which is composed of local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement partners, to obtain broad support and forge commitments from these members to report this critical information. National support is garnered through working partnerships with national law enforcement agencies as well. The National Use-of-Force Data Collection and community participation to report data will likely continue to evolve. All data collected at the Federal level is voluntary, that's just unacceptable. 0: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/use-of-force https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/use-of-force

nickff 6y ago
Why should everything be federalized? There is no article in the constitution which mandates (or permits) federal supervision of state powers (such as the police power). The fact that voters fail to hold their lower-level governments to account does not mean that all power (and failure) should be centralized.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  The federal government is responsible for enforcing citizens’ civil rights when states can’t, won’t or don’t.
  - nickff 6y ago
    You're begging the question here; you need to explain your reasoning as to how and why your beliefs are true, rather than simply asserting them.
    - elliekelly 6y ago
      It’s not a belief, it’s a fact. And it’s part and parcel to the basic system of checks and balances underlying the US Federal and State Governments outlined in the Constitution. I had assumed it was common knowledge but I’m happy to walk you through it: The United States Constitution guarantees a certain minimum level of civil rights. Each state’s Constitution may set forth a higher, but not lower, bar for civil rights. (California, for example, cannot amend the state Constitution to allow slavery or to prevent people with orange hair from voting. Well they could but the Federal Government would step in to stop the amendment from being enforced...) Who is responsible for enforcing the Constitution? The Federal and State governments. So when a State government is the entity violating the Constitution the Federal government is responsible. It happens all the time and in myriad ways. The executive branch (President, DOJ, various Federal agencies like the EEOC, etc.) can intervene if enforcement is at issue - usually with a lawsuit (for example, when a state violates voting rights) and rarely with force (like when states refused to carry out school desegregation following Brown v. Board of Education and Brown II). Likewise when the Federal government is infringing civil rights States Attorneys General will bring suit against the Federal Government just the same. Congress, as the legislative branch, can also pass laws under the authority of the Commerce Clause to articulate a minimum national standard for specific civil rights like housing, employment, and education. I can’t post an advertisement for a job opening with the qualification “WHITE WOMEN ONLY” and the State of New York can’t either. States must abide the same way you or I are bound to follow federal law and the consequence of non-compliance is the same: the Department of Justice will come knocking to enforce the Civil Rights Act. Finally, the Judicial Branch has oversight of state judiciary enforcement of civil rights. If Massachusetts arrests me without cause and a Massachusetts judge sentences me to prison without a trial I can appeal to a federal court that would then order Massachusetts to charge me or release me as the Constitution requires. Our entire system is intended to allow the Federal and State Governments and the people to seek assistance and oversight to ensure the rights we are guaranteed are not infringed.
  - lr4444lr 6y ago
    First of all, rights aren't "enforced". They're assumed given, and sometimes enumerated in law. Enforcement against violators is largely a discretionary matter of limited resources.
    - elliekelly 6y ago
      Semantics. You’re right that the usual term in this context would be to “uphold” civil rights but the word enforce means to compel compliance and that is very much an accurate description of the process. Edit: The DOJ Civil Rights Division uses the word “enforce” right on their homepage: https://www.justice.gov/crt https://www.justice.gov/crt
- save_ferris 6y ago
  The Federal government has the power to apply consent decrees to specific police departments when those departments are found to have used force excessively, per the 1994 Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act[0]. This essentially opens police departments up to lawsuits if they exhibit a pattern of bad behavior. In fact, this law explicitly requires DOJ to issue an annual report on "the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers", although they haven’t. > The fact that voters fail to hold their lower-level governments to account does not mean that all power (and failure) should be centralized. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_La...
  - nickff 6y ago
    The legislature and the executive derive their powers from the constitution, not legislation. This is demonstrated by the abundance of unconstitutional legislation.
  - alexilliamson 6y ago
    Just wanna to add that Trump's DOJ isn't pursuing consent decree. In fact, the consent decree in Chicago was nearly finalized when Trump took office, and Sessions dropped it. So they have the power to do it, but they definitely have the power not to do it at all.
- ameister14 6y ago
  Federal supervision of state powers, while not explicitly outlined in the constitution, has been developing based on the commerce and supremacy clauses since the Civil War. We do not currently live in a strict constructionist country, and frankly that type of government is significantly flawed. Madison correctly pointed this out during the Constitutional Convention, and while his negative was not put in, it was later taken up by the Supreme Court as judicial review. I would argue that the death knell for the state's rights reading of the Constitution was the Civil War. It's fairly clear that the development of the government post-war, especially illustrated by the punishments levied against the southern states, created a national government rather than a federation of allied parties.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Consent decrees are definitely an instance where the federal government is supervising the state, but the fact that they are doing something does not ipso facto mean that they should be doing it. This whole thread is about the differences between what governments are doing and what they should be doing. I would argue that incorporation was the beginning of the death knell of states' rights, followed by the dramatic expansion of the administrative state in the early 1900s.
    - rat87 6y ago
      > Consent decrees are definitely an instance where the federal government is supervising the state, but the fact that they are doing something does not ipso facto mean that they should be doing it. This whole thread is about the differences between what governments are doing and what they should be doing. The fact that they needed to supervise them because not enough was being done to change the cops behavior is a strong argument that the federal government should be doing it > I would argue that incorporation was the beginning of the death knell of states' rights People have rights. States which are government do not have rights. The idea of states rights is a ridiculous one that was frequently used to try to justify lack of federal oversight and the "right" to oppress people's rights. As for incorporation it's one of the best actions the supreme court has taken. As a libertarian you should be happy the court said that states can no longer violate people's constitutional rights
- linuxftw 6y ago
  Right. There needs to be less centralization, not more. Perhaps Chicago should be it's own state, or at least an autonomous district.
- rat87 6y ago
  > Why should everything be federalized? Generally most policies are good or bad regardless of where you live. If a policy is good it should be wnavted nationwide so to benifit all citizens. More specifically this has to do with government oversight. When local and state government overstep and violate people's rights and act in an authoritarian fashion the federal government should step in and fix things > There is no article in the constitution which mandates (or permits) federal supervision of state powers (such as the police power). You're incorrect. The Supreme Court has found that federal supervision of police powers is constitutional so it is. As it should be. > The fact that voters fail to hold their lower-level governments to account does not mean that all power (and failure) should be centralized. The fact that voters fail hold their lower-level governments to account and in fact may be unable or don't wish to is an incredibly powerful argument for the need of a centralized solution. The same now as during the civil rights era
minikites 6y ago
It's about State's Rights (to oppress people).
hpoe 6y ago
It is an important concept of federalism to have that separation of authority between State and Federal. Besides given the federal government's track record of transparency do you really think if they had authority over local PDs they'd make all of that data available and open? Update: Just to make clear I don't disagree that more data is good and that we should work to make all crime and police data available, but I don't think the FBI should be able to have absolute authority over local PDs.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  The federal government acts as an oversight body. They should do their job as an oversight body.
  - hpoe 6y ago
    So, I would be interested to hear more of your legal theory for this as it could be argued. However in the United States Constitution the 10th Amendment states that all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Thus establishing the principle of the separation of powers between the federal and state governments as integral to American law. Thus according to the constitution the role of the federal government is not that of an oversight body. I am anxious however to learn more on the subject if you can provide additional evidence that legally the role of the US Federal government is to act as an oversight body for the states. EDIT: A lot of the replies have been informative, and well reasoned and there is a very compelling case from a legal perspective for the idea of the Federal government has the ability to compel local PDs in this respect. My hats off to the replies, very informative. I still don't know if the FBI would be the best appendage for doing something like this, but I do find the responses informative.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      The 14th Amendment says: > No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [ ... ] The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. That gives ground for the US government to oversee the states, at least in matters of judicial and policing oversight.
throwaway894345 6y ago
I completely agree with this. Our national debate would be so much better if we had better data. Of course, some people aren't going to be persuaded by data and will probably try to condemn/intimidate/impugn-the-motives-of etc anyone who tries to talk about the data, but it would at least help good-faith people have a more productive debate.
- Latty 6y ago
  A notable example is the way that gun violence data has been continuously and specifically suppressed by those who oppose gun control in the US (e.g: the Dickey Amendment, which had an extreme chilling effect on the CDC studying gun violence). Unfortunately, it is common for those with power to see the data as a stick they can be beaten with rather than as a tool to do better. Of course, an example of the negative potential also comes to mind: recently we got proof of extreme gerrymandering done using racial data. Obviously that isn't to suggest that data shouldn't exist, but more to underline your last point: fundamentally it can only be beneficial if people come to it in good faith.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    I don’t see how this comment relates to my post or the broader conversation at all. This seems highly off-topic.
    - Latty 6y ago
      Well, my intent was to highlight that there is a similarity: those deciding how (or if) this data should be collected wish to suppress it because they believe it would result in change when they are invested in the status-quo. Fundamentally trying to insulate data collection from those with invested with the status-quo (in all situations) would be sensible.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >is the way that gun violence data has been continuously and specifically suppressed by those who oppose gun control Last I checked they were happily singing out about the data because legal gun owners shoot statistically nobody and military style arms kill statistically nobody compared to career criminals with boring old handguns (who mostly kill each other because they can't rely on the courts to mediate their disputes).
jandrese 6y ago
Maybe the FBI was trying to avoid getting hit with some variant of the Dickey amendment?
heavyset_go 6y ago
> It's crazy to me that in 2020, there isn't comprehensive, mandatory Federal tracking of police-involved shootings. There is a billion dollar lobby that goes up to bat whenever law enforcement gets bad press, or legislation they don't like gets proposed. While I'm in favor of unionization, I do not support organizations that represent the strong arm of the state's desire to operate opaquely and without oversight from the people they're policing.
- vxNsr 6y ago
  So are you against all government unions? What about quasi-gov orgs like SEC? Or teachers? Just trying to understand where you fall on the “unions for me but not thee” scale
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    The one whose members consist of individuals with the ability to detain, assault and murder you, often with impunity via the thin veneer of "I was in fear for my life".
    - vxNsr 6y ago
      What if they can support fabricate such evidence that you’re considered a criminal?
  - dlp211 6y ago
    When the SEC and teachers are capable of using the authority of the State to take my life with qualified immunity for civil rights violations all while abusing overtime and other overpayment techniques and their unions go to bat for them, I will call for an end to their unions.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > When the SEC and teachers are capable of using the authority of the State to take my life with qualified immunity Teachers are covered by QI just as much as cops, and there is much less past precedent on use of force by teachers. Since QI works on the principle of “the absence of precedent covering similar actors in similar circumstances and ruling it unlawful means you can't be held liable”, they probably are more able to do that covered by QI. OTOH, they have less practical opportunity to apply force.
ATsch 6y ago
I think it's interesting that you're using the widely used cop-speak of "police involved shooting", a passivized framing very popular in the media, even when criticizing the police.
- mtgp1000 6y ago
  Are you suggesting that media are pro-police right now? After nearly universally coming out in support of the current protests? What term would you prefer? One that does not presume innocence?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    A bunch of passive-voice examples here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/the-curious-grammar-of-police-shootings/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/... > The deputy’s gun fired one shot, missing the dog and hitting the child. Or here: https://reason.com/2020/01/28/passive-voice-deployed-in-mysterious-shooting-death-of-handcuffed-man-in-police-car/ https://reason.com/2020/01/28/passive-voice-deployed-in-myst... > The suspect was struck several times by the officer's duty weapon.
    - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
      Passive-voice is the most appropriate for the vast majority of news stories.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        Perhaps, but how often do you hear tortured, nonsensical phrasing like "the suspect's gun shot the victim" when discussing non-police incidents? Sometimes the voice switches mid-tweet when the subject does: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1266935666274906113 https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1266935666274906113 > Minneapolis: A photographer was shot in the eye. > Washington, D.C.: Protesters struck a journalist with his own microphone. > Louisville: A reporter was hit by a pepper ball on live television by an officer who appeared to be aiming at her. "A photographer was shot" (cop), "A reporter was hit" (cop), but "Protesters struck".
rednerrus 6y ago
Wait until you find out about doctors.
thowawaybae 6y ago
Instead of the unethical FBI [0] leading this we need the NSA, since they have a lot more experience with data collection and aggregation [1]. We could skip the voluntary data dumps too with local law enforcement and go straight to involuntary! 0 https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/fbi-nsa-mass-surveillance-abuse/ https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/fbi-nsa-mass-surveillanc... 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
mgleason_3 6y ago
NPR's Planet Money just released a podcast titled: "Police Unions and Civilian deaths". Some of the notable quotes include: * Starting roughly in the late '50s, Rob says, state governments began allowing police officers to collectively bargain - in other words, to join unions. This is where we found a really remarkable and really horrible result....after officers gained access to collective bargaining rights ... there was a substantial increase in killings of civilians ...about 60 to 70 per year ... killed by the police in an era historically where there are a lot fewer police shootings. So that's a humongous increase. * One possible reason why police unions might want more ways to protect officers from being prosecuted is the safety of the officers. If an officer is worried about being prosecuted, then that officer might hesitate to shoot in a dangerous situation. [but the number of] Officers killed in the line of duty .... doesn't change after bargaining rights are granted. * ...someone who lives in the U.S. was almost 60x as likely to be killed by police as someone in the United Kingdom. ...A black American... is about 3x as likely to be killed by police as a white person.
- chicagoeads 6y ago
  HRDAG estimates that 1 in 3 Americans murdered by a stranger are killed by a police officer. https://granta.com/violence-in-blue/ https://granta.com/violence-in-blue/ In Chicago, the police union has attempted to destroy complaint records and uses an arbitration clause to minimize impact of discipline and to keep information about sustained misconduct complaints under wraps, including other police departments considering hiring an officer (https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/il-grievances https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/il-grievances). (Full disclosure, I'm a co-author of the OP linked article and the article about CPD grievances.)
  - refurb 6y ago
    Well that's certainly playing with statistics. Most people are murdered by someone they know, so we're looking at a pretty small slice of all murders. And that stat is for homicides, not murder. So it includes people lawfully killed.
    - 6y ago
chicagoeads 6y ago
Only a few major police departments have done it themselves, Dallas PD being the most notable as one of the first and most comprehensive I've come across. (Full disclosure, I'm a co-author of the article linked here.)
- brian_herman__ 6y ago
  Thanks for your hard work! Democracy dies in the darkness.
toomim 6y ago
Here's an example of one of these dashboards: http://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/use-of-force-data/officer-involved-shootings-dashboard http://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/use-of-fo... This is run by the Seattle PD. It's quite detailed. It uses Tableau for visualizations. You can see a lot there. And ironically, there seemed to be more protests directed against the Seattle PD than other departments. So I'm not sure that this dashboard of data actually matters to protestors.
linuxftw 6y ago
> It's crazy to me that in 2020, there isn't comprehensive, mandatory Federal tracking of police-involved shootings. This may come as a surprise to you, but that would be unconstitutional. The constitution limits what the federal government can do, and thus, there is no provision for what you're proposing. Unless of course, you mean an amendment, and that ipso facto requires approval of 3/4 of the states.
tipsysquid 6y ago
I am certain that the non-profit sector can organize and create a reporter-based system that logs this data if the individual states and cities won't. There's never been more desire for this data.
coronadisaster 6y ago
The should track all deaths occuring during police encounters, including chokings, drug overdose, etc... Not only shootings.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
darksaints 6y ago
I know this is probably asking too much, but any death or serious injury under police control should immediately go to a grand jury. With a grand jury, they have power to subpoena any and all evidence, including the stuff that the police like to hold back. And they can also compel people to testify under oath, which encourages the cops involved to turn on wrongdoers where they would normally be content with sitting back and not saying anything. Also, since grand juries do not decide on guilt, there is no 5th amendment right to abstain from self incrimination. They must tell the truth or risk being held accountable with severe consequences if caught in a lie. In other words, take those weak internal affairs investigations that are staffed by brothers in blue, and put it into the hands of a jury and give them some powerful tools to get to the actual bottom of the matter. The best part of the idea is that cops would be forced to justify the reasonableness of their supposed reasonable use of force, and they would be held to the standard of "reasonable" that the public decides, not themselves. And it is not a trial, it is merely a screening for a trial to see if it passes the bar for criminal action.
- eurleif 6y ago
  >Also, since grand juries do not decide on guilt, there is no 5th amendment right to abstain from self incrimination. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's not how the Fifth Amendment works. Wikipedia notes the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent is broad enough to apply even in civil proceedings, and mentions an example of it being used in grand jury testimony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Self-incrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Correct. If you could be forced to admit guilt in a Grand Jury, that admission could be used in the actual criminal proceedings.
    - darksaints 6y ago
      Looks like I was wrong about self incrimination in a grand jury, but even given that caveat, a grand jury can be useful for breaking through the blue line. For example, a prosecutor can petition to grant immunity to a key witness, and if granted immunity, can compel them to testify about things that would normally be self-incriminating, in order to reveal testimony of criminal behavior of a partner.
MaximumYComb 6y ago
It's crazy to me that in 2020 a first world city with a 2.7 million population has 80 shootings with at least 17 deaths in a single weekend. All forms of violence, including police violence, would drop if America managed to bring its gun addiction under control.

nickff 6y ago

Why should everything be federalized? There is no article in the constitution which mandates (or permits) federal supervision of state powers (such as the police power). The fact that voters fail to hold their lower-level governments to account does not mean that all power (and failure) should be centralized.

elliekelly 6y ago
The federal government is responsible for enforcing citizens’ civil rights when states can’t, won’t or don’t.
- nickff 6y ago
  You're begging the question here; you need to explain your reasoning as to how and why your beliefs are true, rather than simply asserting them.
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    It’s not a belief, it’s a fact. And it’s part and parcel to the basic system of checks and balances underlying the US Federal and State Governments outlined in the Constitution. I had assumed it was common knowledge but I’m happy to walk you through it: The United States Constitution guarantees a certain minimum level of civil rights. Each state’s Constitution may set forth a higher, but not lower, bar for civil rights. (California, for example, cannot amend the state Constitution to allow slavery or to prevent people with orange hair from voting. Well they could but the Federal Government would step in to stop the amendment from being enforced...) Who is responsible for enforcing the Constitution? The Federal and State governments. So when a State government is the entity violating the Constitution the Federal government is responsible. It happens all the time and in myriad ways. The executive branch (President, DOJ, various Federal agencies like the EEOC, etc.) can intervene if enforcement is at issue - usually with a lawsuit (for example, when a state violates voting rights) and rarely with force (like when states refused to carry out school desegregation following Brown v. Board of Education and Brown II). Likewise when the Federal government is infringing civil rights States Attorneys General will bring suit against the Federal Government just the same. Congress, as the legislative branch, can also pass laws under the authority of the Commerce Clause to articulate a minimum national standard for specific civil rights like housing, employment, and education. I can’t post an advertisement for a job opening with the qualification “WHITE WOMEN ONLY” and the State of New York can’t either. States must abide the same way you or I are bound to follow federal law and the consequence of non-compliance is the same: the Department of Justice will come knocking to enforce the Civil Rights Act. Finally, the Judicial Branch has oversight of state judiciary enforcement of civil rights. If Massachusetts arrests me without cause and a Massachusetts judge sentences me to prison without a trial I can appeal to a federal court that would then order Massachusetts to charge me or release me as the Constitution requires. Our entire system is intended to allow the Federal and State Governments and the people to seek assistance and oversight to ensure the rights we are guaranteed are not infringed.
- lr4444lr 6y ago
  First of all, rights aren't "enforced". They're assumed given, and sometimes enumerated in law. Enforcement against violators is largely a discretionary matter of limited resources.
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    Semantics. You’re right that the usual term in this context would be to “uphold” civil rights but the word enforce means to compel compliance and that is very much an accurate description of the process. Edit: The DOJ Civil Rights Division uses the word “enforce” right on their homepage: https://www.justice.gov/crt https://www.justice.gov/crt
save_ferris 6y ago
The Federal government has the power to apply consent decrees to specific police departments when those departments are found to have used force excessively, per the 1994 Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act[0]. This essentially opens police departments up to lawsuits if they exhibit a pattern of bad behavior. In fact, this law explicitly requires DOJ to issue an annual report on "the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers", although they haven’t. > The fact that voters fail to hold their lower-level governments to account does not mean that all power (and failure) should be centralized. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_La...
- nickff 6y ago
  The legislature and the executive derive their powers from the constitution, not legislation. This is demonstrated by the abundance of unconstitutional legislation.
- alexilliamson 6y ago
  Just wanna to add that Trump's DOJ isn't pursuing consent decree. In fact, the consent decree in Chicago was nearly finalized when Trump took office, and Sessions dropped it. So they have the power to do it, but they definitely have the power not to do it at all.
ameister14 6y ago
Federal supervision of state powers, while not explicitly outlined in the constitution, has been developing based on the commerce and supremacy clauses since the Civil War. We do not currently live in a strict constructionist country, and frankly that type of government is significantly flawed. Madison correctly pointed this out during the Constitutional Convention, and while his negative was not put in, it was later taken up by the Supreme Court as judicial review. I would argue that the death knell for the state's rights reading of the Constitution was the Civil War. It's fairly clear that the development of the government post-war, especially illustrated by the punishments levied against the southern states, created a national government rather than a federation of allied parties.
- nickff 6y ago
  Consent decrees are definitely an instance where the federal government is supervising the state, but the fact that they are doing something does not ipso facto mean that they should be doing it. This whole thread is about the differences between what governments are doing and what they should be doing. I would argue that incorporation was the beginning of the death knell of states' rights, followed by the dramatic expansion of the administrative state in the early 1900s.
  - rat87 6y ago
    > Consent decrees are definitely an instance where the federal government is supervising the state, but the fact that they are doing something does not ipso facto mean that they should be doing it. This whole thread is about the differences between what governments are doing and what they should be doing. The fact that they needed to supervise them because not enough was being done to change the cops behavior is a strong argument that the federal government should be doing it > I would argue that incorporation was the beginning of the death knell of states' rights People have rights. States which are government do not have rights. The idea of states rights is a ridiculous one that was frequently used to try to justify lack of federal oversight and the "right" to oppress people's rights. As for incorporation it's one of the best actions the supreme court has taken. As a libertarian you should be happy the court said that states can no longer violate people's constitutional rights
linuxftw 6y ago
Right. There needs to be less centralization, not more. Perhaps Chicago should be it's own state, or at least an autonomous district.
rat87 6y ago
> Why should everything be federalized? Generally most policies are good or bad regardless of where you live. If a policy is good it should be wnavted nationwide so to benifit all citizens. More specifically this has to do with government oversight. When local and state government overstep and violate people's rights and act in an authoritarian fashion the federal government should step in and fix things > There is no article in the constitution which mandates (or permits) federal supervision of state powers (such as the police power). You're incorrect. The Supreme Court has found that federal supervision of police powers is constitutional so it is. As it should be. > The fact that voters fail to hold their lower-level governments to account does not mean that all power (and failure) should be centralized. The fact that voters fail hold their lower-level governments to account and in fact may be unable or don't wish to is an incredibly powerful argument for the need of a centralized solution. The same now as during the civil rights era

minikites 6y ago

It's about State's Rights (to oppress people).

hpoe 6y ago

It is an important concept of federalism to have that separation of authority between State and Federal. Besides given the federal government's track record of transparency do you really think if they had authority over local PDs they'd make all of that data available and open? Update: Just to make clear I don't disagree that more data is good and that we should work to make all crime and police data available, but I don't think the FBI should be able to have absolute authority over local PDs.

aaomidi 6y ago
The federal government acts as an oversight body. They should do their job as an oversight body.
- hpoe 6y ago
  So, I would be interested to hear more of your legal theory for this as it could be argued. However in the United States Constitution the 10th Amendment states that all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Thus establishing the principle of the separation of powers between the federal and state governments as integral to American law. Thus according to the constitution the role of the federal government is not that of an oversight body. I am anxious however to learn more on the subject if you can provide additional evidence that legally the role of the US Federal government is to act as an oversight body for the states. EDIT: A lot of the replies have been informative, and well reasoned and there is a very compelling case from a legal perspective for the idea of the Federal government has the ability to compel local PDs in this respect. My hats off to the replies, very informative. I still don't know if the FBI would be the best appendage for doing something like this, but I do find the responses informative.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    The 14th Amendment says: > No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [ ... ] The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. That gives ground for the US government to oversee the states, at least in matters of judicial and policing oversight.

throwaway894345 6y ago

I completely agree with this. Our national debate would be so much better if we had better data. Of course, some people aren't going to be persuaded by data and will probably try to condemn/intimidate/impugn-the-motives-of etc anyone who tries to talk about the data, but it would at least help good-faith people have a more productive debate.

Latty 6y ago
A notable example is the way that gun violence data has been continuously and specifically suppressed by those who oppose gun control in the US (e.g: the Dickey Amendment, which had an extreme chilling effect on the CDC studying gun violence). Unfortunately, it is common for those with power to see the data as a stick they can be beaten with rather than as a tool to do better. Of course, an example of the negative potential also comes to mind: recently we got proof of extreme gerrymandering done using racial data. Obviously that isn't to suggest that data shouldn't exist, but more to underline your last point: fundamentally it can only be beneficial if people come to it in good faith.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I don’t see how this comment relates to my post or the broader conversation at all. This seems highly off-topic.
  - Latty 6y ago
    Well, my intent was to highlight that there is a similarity: those deciding how (or if) this data should be collected wish to suppress it because they believe it would result in change when they are invested in the status-quo. Fundamentally trying to insulate data collection from those with invested with the status-quo (in all situations) would be sensible.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >is the way that gun violence data has been continuously and specifically suppressed by those who oppose gun control Last I checked they were happily singing out about the data because legal gun owners shoot statistically nobody and military style arms kill statistically nobody compared to career criminals with boring old handguns (who mostly kill each other because they can't rely on the courts to mediate their disputes).

jandrese 6y ago

Maybe the FBI was trying to avoid getting hit with some variant of the Dickey amendment?

heavyset_go 6y ago

> It's crazy to me that in 2020, there isn't comprehensive, mandatory Federal tracking of police-involved shootings. There is a billion dollar lobby that goes up to bat whenever law enforcement gets bad press, or legislation they don't like gets proposed. While I'm in favor of unionization, I do not support organizations that represent the strong arm of the state's desire to operate opaquely and without oversight from the people they're policing.

vxNsr 6y ago
So are you against all government unions? What about quasi-gov orgs like SEC? Or teachers? Just trying to understand where you fall on the “unions for me but not thee” scale
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  The one whose members consist of individuals with the ability to detain, assault and murder you, often with impunity via the thin veneer of "I was in fear for my life".
  - vxNsr 6y ago
    What if they can support fabricate such evidence that you’re considered a criminal?
- dlp211 6y ago
  When the SEC and teachers are capable of using the authority of the State to take my life with qualified immunity for civil rights violations all while abusing overtime and other overpayment techniques and their unions go to bat for them, I will call for an end to their unions.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > When the SEC and teachers are capable of using the authority of the State to take my life with qualified immunity Teachers are covered by QI just as much as cops, and there is much less past precedent on use of force by teachers. Since QI works on the principle of “the absence of precedent covering similar actors in similar circumstances and ruling it unlawful means you can't be held liable”, they probably are more able to do that covered by QI. OTOH, they have less practical opportunity to apply force.

ATsch 6y ago

I think it's interesting that you're using the widely used cop-speak of "police involved shooting", a passivized framing very popular in the media, even when criticizing the police.

mtgp1000 6y ago
Are you suggesting that media are pro-police right now? After nearly universally coming out in support of the current protests? What term would you prefer? One that does not presume innocence?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  A bunch of passive-voice examples here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/the-curious-grammar-of-police-shootings/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/... > The deputy’s gun fired one shot, missing the dog and hitting the child. Or here: https://reason.com/2020/01/28/passive-voice-deployed-in-mysterious-shooting-death-of-handcuffed-man-in-police-car/ https://reason.com/2020/01/28/passive-voice-deployed-in-myst... > The suspect was struck several times by the officer's duty weapon.
  - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
    Passive-voice is the most appropriate for the vast majority of news stories.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Perhaps, but how often do you hear tortured, nonsensical phrasing like "the suspect's gun shot the victim" when discussing non-police incidents? Sometimes the voice switches mid-tweet when the subject does: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1266935666274906113 https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1266935666274906113 > Minneapolis: A photographer was shot in the eye. > Washington, D.C.: Protesters struck a journalist with his own microphone. > Louisville: A reporter was hit by a pepper ball on live television by an officer who appeared to be aiming at her. "A photographer was shot" (cop), "A reporter was hit" (cop), but "Protesters struck".

rednerrus 6y ago

Wait until you find out about doctors.

thowawaybae 6y ago

Instead of the unethical FBI [0] leading this we need the NSA, since they have a lot more experience with data collection and aggregation [1]. We could skip the voluntary data dumps too with local law enforcement and go straight to involuntary! 0 https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/fbi-nsa-mass-surveillance-abuse/ https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/fbi-nsa-mass-surveillanc... 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

mgleason_3 6y ago

NPR's Planet Money just released a podcast titled: "Police Unions and Civilian deaths". Some of the notable quotes include: * Starting roughly in the late '50s, Rob says, state governments began allowing police officers to collectively bargain - in other words, to join unions. This is where we found a really remarkable and really horrible result....after officers gained access to collective bargaining rights ... there was a substantial increase in killings of civilians ...about 60 to 70 per year ... killed by the police in an era historically where there are a lot fewer police shootings. So that's a humongous increase. * One possible reason why police unions might want more ways to protect officers from being prosecuted is the safety of the officers. If an officer is worried about being prosecuted, then that officer might hesitate to shoot in a dangerous situation. [but the number of] Officers killed in the line of duty .... doesn't change after bargaining rights are granted. * ...someone who lives in the U.S. was almost 60x as likely to be killed by police as someone in the United Kingdom. ...A black American... is about 3x as likely to be killed by police as a white person.

chicagoeads 6y ago
HRDAG estimates that 1 in 3 Americans murdered by a stranger are killed by a police officer. https://granta.com/violence-in-blue/ https://granta.com/violence-in-blue/ In Chicago, the police union has attempted to destroy complaint records and uses an arbitration clause to minimize impact of discipline and to keep information about sustained misconduct complaints under wraps, including other police departments considering hiring an officer (https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/il-grievances https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/il-grievances). (Full disclosure, I'm a co-author of the OP linked article and the article about CPD grievances.)
- refurb 6y ago
  Well that's certainly playing with statistics. Most people are murdered by someone they know, so we're looking at a pretty small slice of all murders. And that stat is for homicides, not murder. So it includes people lawfully killed.
  - 6y ago

chicagoeads 6y ago

Only a few major police departments have done it themselves, Dallas PD being the most notable as one of the first and most comprehensive I've come across. (Full disclosure, I'm a co-author of the article linked here.)

brian_herman__ 6y ago
Thanks for your hard work! Democracy dies in the darkness.

toomim 6y ago

Here's an example of one of these dashboards: http://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/use-of-force-data/officer-involved-shootings-dashboard http://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/use-of-fo... This is run by the Seattle PD. It's quite detailed. It uses Tableau for visualizations. You can see a lot there. And ironically, there seemed to be more protests directed against the Seattle PD than other departments. So I'm not sure that this dashboard of data actually matters to protestors.

linuxftw 6y ago

> It's crazy to me that in 2020, there isn't comprehensive, mandatory Federal tracking of police-involved shootings. This may come as a surprise to you, but that would be unconstitutional. The constitution limits what the federal government can do, and thus, there is no provision for what you're proposing. Unless of course, you mean an amendment, and that ipso facto requires approval of 3/4 of the states.

tipsysquid 6y ago

I am certain that the non-profit sector can organize and create a reporter-based system that logs this data if the individual states and cities won't. There's never been more desire for this data.

coronadisaster 6y ago

The should track all deaths occuring during police encounters, including chokings, drug overdose, etc... Not only shootings.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

darksaints 6y ago

I know this is probably asking too much, but any death or serious injury under police control should immediately go to a grand jury. With a grand jury, they have power to subpoena any and all evidence, including the stuff that the police like to hold back. And they can also compel people to testify under oath, which encourages the cops involved to turn on wrongdoers where they would normally be content with sitting back and not saying anything. Also, since grand juries do not decide on guilt, there is no 5th amendment right to abstain from self incrimination. They must tell the truth or risk being held accountable with severe consequences if caught in a lie. In other words, take those weak internal affairs investigations that are staffed by brothers in blue, and put it into the hands of a jury and give them some powerful tools to get to the actual bottom of the matter. The best part of the idea is that cops would be forced to justify the reasonableness of their supposed reasonable use of force, and they would be held to the standard of "reasonable" that the public decides, not themselves. And it is not a trial, it is merely a screening for a trial to see if it passes the bar for criminal action.

eurleif 6y ago
>Also, since grand juries do not decide on guilt, there is no 5th amendment right to abstain from self incrimination. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's not how the Fifth Amendment works. Wikipedia notes the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent is broad enough to apply even in civil proceedings, and mentions an example of it being used in grand jury testimony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Self-incrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Correct. If you could be forced to admit guilt in a Grand Jury, that admission could be used in the actual criminal proceedings.
  - darksaints 6y ago
    Looks like I was wrong about self incrimination in a grand jury, but even given that caveat, a grand jury can be useful for breaking through the blue line. For example, a prosecutor can petition to grant immunity to a key witness, and if granted immunity, can compel them to testify about things that would normally be self-incriminating, in order to reveal testimony of criminal behavior of a partner.

MaximumYComb 6y ago

It's crazy to me that in 2020 a first world city with a 2.7 million population has 80 shootings with at least 17 deaths in a single weekend. All forms of violence, including police violence, would drop if America managed to bring its gun addiction under control.