5 ms·

Where do you see that this is a required program? The only requirement described is for the program itself. It's failing to meet its own requirements and thus i

by User23 5y ago

Where do you see that this is a required program? The only requirement described is for the program itself. It's failing to meet its own requirements and thus it's shutting down. In the USA police power generally belongs to the states. The FBI can't just arbitrarily order state and local police to participate in their programs.

NoGravitas 5y ago
While police power generally belongs to the states, state and local police get tons of money from the federal government. It should be at least possible to withhold that money from non-compliant agencies.
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  And they should have a right to while giving up the benefits of federal support. It appears that non-participation here is costless.
joshstrange 5y ago
I read: > The GAO report also says the Justice Department has largely ignored a requirement included in the 1994 crime bill to “acquire data about the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers” and “shall publish an annual summary of the data acquired.” Maybe I'm reading this wrong but I read this as "the collection is required by the crime bill passed in 1994". Even if it's not, the FBI surely has carrots and sticks they can use to force participation.
- tabtab 5y ago
  > Even if it's not, the FBI surely has carrots and sticks they can use to force participation. But some agencies will resist anyhow because they are anti-Fed. Many rural areas have a giant mistrust of the Federal gov't. Incentives will just make them double-down. You know, the Culture Wars. To get near 100% compliance would require both a strongly-worded law and strong enforcement.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    Then take away any federal participation in their budgets and equipment, and let's find out just how committed they are to their anti-Fed ideology.
    - User23 5y ago
      Congress controls federal spending, not the FBI. It's not impossible, but I think it would be difficult to get legislation to impair the states' sovereign police power through Congress and the inevitable court challenges in the unlikely event such a bill were passed. On a more important note though, perhaps you should back down a bit from your authoritarian stance. It's not a good thing when your first reaction to people disagreeing with you is coercion justified by a complete lack of empathy.
      - rootusrootus 5y ago
        You seriously just called me authoritarian for wanting to use the power of congress to compel police forces to provide more transparency so the public can know how well the system is or isn't working? Congress, the people we actually get to vote for, should have some ability to be a check on the power of the people we don't get to vote for but can shoot us dead or kick the crap out of us without consequences. That is a brazen redefinition of authoritarian.
        User23 5y ago
        I don’t know where you live, but in my state sheriffs are elected and police report to elected officials. Your exceedingly emotional response indicates clouded judgment. You’re advocating for the federal government to seize authority that the sovereign states never granted it. It’s the textbook definition of authoritarianism.
        rootusrootus 5y ago
        Emotional? Not even a little. Slightly flabbergasted, perhaps. The federal government gives away money and equipment to local police departments. Aside from the strawman tangent you went off on with regards to congress having to make some laws, all I suggested was that maybe the feds could just, you know, not give that money to the departments if they don't want to cooperate. That's not even a little bit authoritarian. The local departments are completely within their rights to finance their budgets the old fashioned way and continue to be unaccountable, or at least accountable to their local citizens. Which is how it ought to be anyway. Funneling it through the feds is a terrible way to have any accountability.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  What's your stance on sanctuary cities not enforcing federal immigration law then? How about marijuana laws? Seems like the response is that local and state authorities can ignore these federal mandates all they want. You don't get to have it both ways and ask for enforcement when you side with certain laws and ignore it otherwise.
  - User23 5y ago
    It's even more striking than that. This FBI program isn't even a federal mandate for the states, but rather a mandate for the DoJ. For the states it's just a request. By definition a request can be declined. Immigration and marijuana restrictions on the other hand are actual laws that were passed by Congress and signed by the President.
xnyan 5y ago
>The FBI can't just arbitrarily order state and local police to participate in their programs. In practice the federal government has a huge amount of influence over what states do because they are one of the most important sources of funding of many state programs, and they can and do set conditions for getting that money. Police departments get billions of dollars of resources from the feds. There are already conditions to getting it, requiring that police report when someone is shot as a condition of federal funding is absolutely something that could be done without any new law or regulation.
- User23 5y ago
  > they can and do set conditions for getting that money. The courts have set significant limits on the conditions that can be set[1]. Perhaps such withholding would pass legal muster, perhaps it wouldn't, but I guarantee you it would be challenged. Look at the defund sanctuary cities executive order court challenges[2][3]. There's plenty of precedent for the federal government to not be able to withhold funds because local agencies won't cooperate. [1] https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20170323_R44797_36eb380c05663646f82405ecc6d512de9bf7968a.pdf#page=7 https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20170323_R44797_36eb380... [2] https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/361297-federal-judge-makes-permanent-ruling-against-trumps-sanctuary-city https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/361297-federal-j... [3] https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2021/03/04/final-victory-for-san-francisco-in-sanctuary-city-case-against-trump-administration/ https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2021/03/04/final-victory-for-...

by User23 5y ago

NoGravitas 5y ago

While police power generally belongs to the states, state and local police get tons of money from the federal government. It should be at least possible to withhold that money from non-compliant agencies.

germinalphrase 5y ago
And they should have a right to while giving up the benefits of federal support. It appears that non-participation here is costless.

joshstrange 5y ago

I read: > The GAO report also says the Justice Department has largely ignored a requirement included in the 1994 crime bill to “acquire data about the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers” and “shall publish an annual summary of the data acquired.” Maybe I'm reading this wrong but I read this as "the collection is required by the crime bill passed in 1994". Even if it's not, the FBI surely has carrots and sticks they can use to force participation.

tabtab 5y ago
> Even if it's not, the FBI surely has carrots and sticks they can use to force participation. But some agencies will resist anyhow because they are anti-Fed. Many rural areas have a giant mistrust of the Federal gov't. Incentives will just make them double-down. You know, the Culture Wars. To get near 100% compliance would require both a strongly-worded law and strong enforcement.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  Then take away any federal participation in their budgets and equipment, and let's find out just how committed they are to their anti-Fed ideology.
  - User23 5y ago
    Congress controls federal spending, not the FBI. It's not impossible, but I think it would be difficult to get legislation to impair the states' sovereign police power through Congress and the inevitable court challenges in the unlikely event such a bill were passed. On a more important note though, perhaps you should back down a bit from your authoritarian stance. It's not a good thing when your first reaction to people disagreeing with you is coercion justified by a complete lack of empathy.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      You seriously just called me authoritarian for wanting to use the power of congress to compel police forces to provide more transparency so the public can know how well the system is or isn't working? Congress, the people we actually get to vote for, should have some ability to be a check on the power of the people we don't get to vote for but can shoot us dead or kick the crap out of us without consequences. That is a brazen redefinition of authoritarian.
      - User23 5y ago
        I don’t know where you live, but in my state sheriffs are elected and police report to elected officials. Your exceedingly emotional response indicates clouded judgment. You’re advocating for the federal government to seize authority that the sovereign states never granted it. It’s the textbook definition of authoritarianism.
        rootusrootus 5y ago
        Emotional? Not even a little. Slightly flabbergasted, perhaps. The federal government gives away money and equipment to local police departments. Aside from the strawman tangent you went off on with regards to congress having to make some laws, all I suggested was that maybe the feds could just, you know, not give that money to the departments if they don't want to cooperate. That's not even a little bit authoritarian. The local departments are completely within their rights to finance their budgets the old fashioned way and continue to be unaccountable, or at least accountable to their local citizens. Which is how it ought to be anyway. Funneling it through the feds is a terrible way to have any accountability.
CountDrewku 5y ago
What's your stance on sanctuary cities not enforcing federal immigration law then? How about marijuana laws? Seems like the response is that local and state authorities can ignore these federal mandates all they want. You don't get to have it both ways and ask for enforcement when you side with certain laws and ignore it otherwise.
- User23 5y ago
  It's even more striking than that. This FBI program isn't even a federal mandate for the states, but rather a mandate for the DoJ. For the states it's just a request. By definition a request can be declined. Immigration and marijuana restrictions on the other hand are actual laws that were passed by Congress and signed by the President.

xnyan 5y ago

>The FBI can't just arbitrarily order state and local police to participate in their programs. In practice the federal government has a huge amount of influence over what states do because they are one of the most important sources of funding of many state programs, and they can and do set conditions for getting that money. Police departments get billions of dollars of resources from the feds. There are already conditions to getting it, requiring that police report when someone is shot as a condition of federal funding is absolutely something that could be done without any new law or regulation.

User23 5y ago
> they can and do set conditions for getting that money. The courts have set significant limits on the conditions that can be set[1]. Perhaps such withholding would pass legal muster, perhaps it wouldn't, but I guarantee you it would be challenged. Look at the defund sanctuary cities executive order court challenges[2][3]. There's plenty of precedent for the federal government to not be able to withhold funds because local agencies won't cooperate. [1] https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20170323_R44797_36eb380c05663646f82405ecc6d512de9bf7968a.pdf#page=7 https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20170323_R44797_36eb380... [2] https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/361297-federal-judge-makes-permanent-ruling-against-trumps-sanctuary-city https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/361297-federal-j... [3] https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2021/03/04/final-victory-for-san-francisco-in-sanctuary-city-case-against-trump-administration/ https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2021/03/04/final-victory-for-...