3 ms·

Leaving it up to local voters makes it sound like it's ok for a police dept to misbehave, eg harass minorities or evade accountability, as long as the majority

by ridaj 6y ago

Leaving it up to local voters makes it sound like it's ok for a police dept to misbehave, eg harass minorities or evade accountability, as long as the majority voters in that city/county are ok with it. I think that's a problem and that going to a couple levels in governance (state or federal) makes total sense given the systematic nature of some of the problems.

dvtrn 6y ago
Leaving it up to local voters makes it sound like it's ok for a police dept to misbehave, eg harass minorities or evade accountability I apologize, but I don't quite get how you arrived at the conclusion you have, specifically this point. Help me out here?
- mekoka 6y ago
  The full sentence went > Leaving it up to local voters makes it sound like it's ok for a police dept to misbehave, eg harass minorities or evade accountability, as long as the majority voters in that city/county are ok with it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  The sheriff is elected, and there's enough communities in the South where shitting on blacks is a way of life. Do you remember the case of the kid who went to prison because he had birdshit on his hood that the drug quicktest identified as cocaine? Dude only got out quickly because he played football (for I think UGA) and the coach intervened. That stuff, friend, is government-approved reality for many.
- alextheparrot 6y ago
  Historically giving power to local politics in the United States has been (sometimes) used to discriminate against populations. This is effectively what the Jim Crow south was, legal but unequal. This isn’t to say that federal policies don’t also have issues. If we think something is a right of all citizens (Such as to not be subject to abuse by the police), that only really takes hold if it is applied across the nation, which is federal.
- danbolt 6y ago
  I think the parent is suggesting akin to a Tyranny of the Majority with a locally elected police. For example, if I live in a small town that where 80% of the people intent their C code with tabs and I use spaces, they could theoretically elect a police chief who espouses tabs-jingoism and treats spaces-programmers less fairly.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Police in small towns are staffed by the good ol' boys club that have no problem with Bob selling cocaine because most of the force has been friends with him since 2nd grade, but God help you if you drive down their highways with an out of state plate or the wrong skin color.
  - ridaj 6y ago
    This Here's a good example. Sheriff, under the influence, attempts to interfere with the arrest of a stabbing suspect, buddy of his. https://youtu.be/pKraZkl0-eA https://youtu.be/pKraZkl0-eA We know about this one sheriff because his staff stood up to him and he got arrested but it tells you a lot about the quality of local law enforcement in small towns.
pdonis 6y ago
> Leaving it up to local voters makes it sound like it's ok for a police dept to misbehave, eg harass minorities or evade accountability, as long as the majority voters in that city/county are ok with it. In the extremely unlikely event that a majority are ok with it, yes, that would be correct as far as local laws are concerned. That's what "freedom" means: it means people are free to make mistakes. Note, however, that if the corrupt local cops are violating state or federal law, they're still liable even if a majority of local voters are ok with it. I don't have a problem with, for example, local cops being prosecuted for violating a citizen's Constitutional rights. However, I strongly doubt that a majority of voters in these localities are actually ok with police corruption. I think they either don't bother voting because they don't think it will make any difference, or don't know about the corruption because they haven't personally experienced the consequences. Even in a large city like, e.g., Chicago, the majority of voters will never have a personal encounter with a city cop. > going to a couple levels in governance (state or federal) makes total sense given the systematic nature of some of the problems You're assuming that the state and federal levels of government don't also have systematic problems that would prevent them from fixing corruption. That strikes me as a highly unlikely assumption.
- ndaiger 6y ago
  The 14th amendment to the constitution would seem to disagree with your assertion.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    If the 14th amendment by itself had fixed the problem, we wouldn't still have it 152 years later.
- ridaj 6y ago
  It's unlikely that voters would be ok with all-around corruption of the police, but not unlikely at all that they'd be ok with, for example, harassment or overuse of force against minorities. Historically the Jim Crow south is a direct product of local policies, so I think the historical record supports this view in fact. While state and federal government aren't devoid of corruption either, at least more homogeneity can be achieved at these levels. Local jurisdictions are more prone to extreme population disparities just by virtue of being smaller.
throwaway201103 6y ago
If state and local law enforcement were subject to this level of federal oversight and control, we would not have legal marijuana anywhere.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  We have quasi-legal marijuana in some jurisdictions right now. It's still federally illegal everywhere and that's just not being enforced (I think because the Feds know that if they squeeze that particular watermelon seed that it will fly out of their fingers everywhere).

by ridaj 6y ago

dvtrn 6y ago

Leaving it up to local voters makes it sound like it's ok for a police dept to misbehave, eg harass minorities or evade accountability I apologize, but I don't quite get how you arrived at the conclusion you have, specifically this point. Help me out here?

mekoka 6y ago
The full sentence went > Leaving it up to local voters makes it sound like it's ok for a police dept to misbehave, eg harass minorities or evade accountability, as long as the majority voters in that city/county are ok with it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
HarryHirsch 6y ago
The sheriff is elected, and there's enough communities in the South where shitting on blacks is a way of life. Do you remember the case of the kid who went to prison because he had birdshit on his hood that the drug quicktest identified as cocaine? Dude only got out quickly because he played football (for I think UGA) and the coach intervened. That stuff, friend, is government-approved reality for many.
alextheparrot 6y ago
Historically giving power to local politics in the United States has been (sometimes) used to discriminate against populations. This is effectively what the Jim Crow south was, legal but unequal. This isn’t to say that federal policies don’t also have issues. If we think something is a right of all citizens (Such as to not be subject to abuse by the police), that only really takes hold if it is applied across the nation, which is federal.
danbolt 6y ago
I think the parent is suggesting akin to a Tyranny of the Majority with a locally elected police. For example, if I live in a small town that where 80% of the people intent their C code with tabs and I use spaces, they could theoretically elect a police chief who espouses tabs-jingoism and treats spaces-programmers less fairly.
heavyset_go 6y ago
Police in small towns are staffed by the good ol' boys club that have no problem with Bob selling cocaine because most of the force has been friends with him since 2nd grade, but God help you if you drive down their highways with an out of state plate or the wrong skin color.
- ridaj 6y ago
  This Here's a good example. Sheriff, under the influence, attempts to interfere with the arrest of a stabbing suspect, buddy of his. https://youtu.be/pKraZkl0-eA https://youtu.be/pKraZkl0-eA We know about this one sheriff because his staff stood up to him and he got arrested but it tells you a lot about the quality of local law enforcement in small towns.

pdonis 6y ago

> Leaving it up to local voters makes it sound like it's ok for a police dept to misbehave, eg harass minorities or evade accountability, as long as the majority voters in that city/county are ok with it. In the extremely unlikely event that a majority are ok with it, yes, that would be correct as far as local laws are concerned. That's what "freedom" means: it means people are free to make mistakes. Note, however, that if the corrupt local cops are violating state or federal law, they're still liable even if a majority of local voters are ok with it. I don't have a problem with, for example, local cops being prosecuted for violating a citizen's Constitutional rights. However, I strongly doubt that a majority of voters in these localities are actually ok with police corruption. I think they either don't bother voting because they don't think it will make any difference, or don't know about the corruption because they haven't personally experienced the consequences. Even in a large city like, e.g., Chicago, the majority of voters will never have a personal encounter with a city cop. > going to a couple levels in governance (state or federal) makes total sense given the systematic nature of some of the problems You're assuming that the state and federal levels of government don't also have systematic problems that would prevent them from fixing corruption. That strikes me as a highly unlikely assumption.

ndaiger 6y ago
The 14th amendment to the constitution would seem to disagree with your assertion.
- pdonis 6y ago
  If the 14th amendment by itself had fixed the problem, we wouldn't still have it 152 years later.
ridaj 6y ago
It's unlikely that voters would be ok with all-around corruption of the police, but not unlikely at all that they'd be ok with, for example, harassment or overuse of force against minorities. Historically the Jim Crow south is a direct product of local policies, so I think the historical record supports this view in fact. While state and federal government aren't devoid of corruption either, at least more homogeneity can be achieved at these levels. Local jurisdictions are more prone to extreme population disparities just by virtue of being smaller.

throwaway201103 6y ago

If state and local law enforcement were subject to this level of federal oversight and control, we would not have legal marijuana anywhere.

sokoloff 6y ago
We have quasi-legal marijuana in some jurisdictions right now. It's still federally illegal everywhere and that's just not being enforced (I think because the Feds know that if they squeeze that particular watermelon seed that it will fly out of their fingers everywhere).