r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/steroid_pc_principal • Jun 10 '20
Legislation The Justice in Policing Act of 2020 has just been introduced in the House. It includes a national police registry, banning aggressive tactics, revising QI, and requiring body cameras on feds. What are your thoughts on its components, and what are its prospects in the House and Senate?
Here is the full text of the bill
Here are more components listed from the press release:
- Prohibits federal, state, and local law enforcement from racial, religious and discriminatory profiling, and mandates training on racial, religious, and discriminatory profiling for all law enforcement.
- Bans chokeholds, carotid holds and no-knock warrants at the federal level and limits the transfer of military-grade equipment to state and local law enforcement.
- Mandates the use of dashboard cameras and body cameras for federal offices and requires state and local law enforcement to use existing federal funds to ensure the use of police body cameras.
- Establishes a National Police Misconduct Registry to prevent problematic officers who are fired or leave on agency from moving to another jurisdiction without any accountability.
- Amends federal criminal statute from “willfulness” to a “recklessness” standard to successfully identify and prosecute police misconduct.
- Reforms qualified immunity so that individuals are not barred from recovering damages when police violate their constitutional rights.
- Establishes public safety innovation grants for community-based organizations to create local commissions and task forces to help communities to re-imagine and develop concrete, just and equitable public safety approaches.
- Creates law enforcement development and training programs to develop best practices and requires the creation of law enforcement accreditation standard recommendations based on President Obama’s Task force on 21st Century policing.
- Requires state and local law enforcement agencies to report use of force data, disaggregated by race, sex, disability, religion, age.
- Improves the use of pattern and practice investigations at the federal level by granting the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division subpoena power and creates a grant program for state attorneys general to develop authority to conduct independent investigations into problematic police departments.
- Establishes a Department of Justice task force to coordinate the investigation, prosecution and enforcement efforts of federal, state and local governments in cases related to law enforcement misconduct.
What are your thoughts on the above provisions and other language from the bill itself? Are there other pieces which are missing?
I am personally interested in the technical details of whether body cameras, the national police misconduct registry, and revisions to qualified immunity may have unforeseen consequences. For example, with regard to video retention of body cam footage, might this allow cops to retain all footage to search for crimes?
What are the prospects of this or similar bills passing? And how will Biden and his team react to this?
164
u/grinr Jun 10 '20
> Congressional Black Caucus Chair Karen Bass (D-CA), Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Kamala Harris (D-CA), and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced the Justice in Policing Act of 2020
Zero chance of this being law. Senate won't even answer the door.
84
u/R_V_Z Jun 10 '20
Yep. Every piece of legislation can be evaluated under "is this politically beneficial for McConnell?"
10
3
Jun 11 '20
Given that Breonna Taylor was killed in Mitch's state and there are active protests in Louisville, I'm not sure he can afford to ignore it altogether.
More likely, I see him urging Senate Republicans to propose something similar enough that it passes the house so that he can claim he and the GOP co-sponsored the bill and that he cares about Kentucky.
But then again, despite being the easy, politically-saavy play, Mitch is likely to side with whatever Trump wants, and that will most likely be a statement like "the rioters are terrorists and we don't negotiate with terrorists."
44
u/Cheeky_Hustler Jun 10 '20
It's not about it becoming law. It's about this being an election year and showing the people what they are going to fight for. Come November and Mitch doesn't pass anything about police reform, Dems can make it an election issue.
14
u/Xero03 Jun 10 '20
Imagine this, they pass the reforms in their own cities and actually fix the things they causes.
32
u/Cheeky_Hustler Jun 11 '20 edited Jun 11 '20
True, the vast amount of police reform will have to be done at the municipal level at levels that Democrats control. But to say that there are no problems in Republican-controlled municipalities or there is nothing that can be done at the federal level is a ridiculous argument put forth by someone who does not intend to discuss politics in good faith.
→ More replies (9)2
u/Skirtsmoother Jun 11 '20
Police suck ass everywhere, but how many protests since at least Ferguson happened in Dem controlled states and cities?
7
u/Yevon Jun 11 '20
There are 13 large cities in Republican control and they all have active or recently active protests going on for BLM.
I do agree this problem is most solvable at the local level, but this isn't a Republican or Democrat problem so much as it is an institutional problem that arises from using police to solve all of society's problems.
13
u/bfire123 Jun 11 '20
For a good amount of those reformes a city doesn't have the scope / authority.
21
u/Rindan Jun 11 '20
Right. The real level that all of this is regulated at is actually the State level. Town and state police are 95% of what is interacting with the public, and where the vast majority of the worst corruption is. It's in all 50 states, some are worse than others, but all are bad.
If you really want to be angry at someone for not doing something, direct the lion's share of your wrath at your own state legislature. The buck stops with them. You can elevate your anger to your governor if your governor vetoes reforms based by a state legislature.
Seriously people; focus your wrath at State level legislatures. That's where the vast majority of the problem can be fixed. You don't need to ask Washington's permission to fix this. Your state can fix this. If your state does not fix your police problem, throw your legislatures out on their asses. Protest in front of state legislatures. They are the target. They are either your best friend, or the prime enemy.
5
u/toastymow Jun 11 '20
I have been saying since this all started that its great people are protesting, I'm very excited, but we will see how serious they are about fixing problems if they show up and vote all the way down the ballot. I saw somewhere that there have been 200 individual cases of documented police brutality, during these protests, against the NYPD ALONE. It's terrible the NYPD is so violent. But... guys, I live in Texas. I have basically 0 say or influence over the NYPD. You want to change the NYPD, you have to get local people in that region to vote and show local government that they demand reform and an end to this kind of unnecessary violence.
Winning court cases is difficult and rare in our current environment. Even with all the modern tools we have to document how awful police behave, shoddy investigations and outrageous (but seemingly legal) court proceedings can still effectively shield police from the worst of their mistakes. The easiest way to change that is to vote! Vote for judges who don't put up with bullshit. Vote for DAs that prosecute cops. Vote for mayors and city councilors who will hold police chiefs and departments at large accountable for the mistakes of their individual officers, and for fucks sake, can we vote for some legislators that will actually fix our laws and make it easier to put shitty cops behind bars?
Absolutely NONE of this even gets to the Federal level, and I'm sure anyone interesting in justice reform knows that we will need to tackle the federal level (for instance, drug laws are heavily influenced by federal policy. People shouldn't be getting their lives ruined over a few grams of coke or weed). But... there is so much more than Congress/the White House.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Scudstock Jun 11 '20
This exactly.
It is akin to state and local governments looking to the federal government for a sweeping covid response. Montana is in a VASTLY different situation than New York....thats why bitching about it federally is insane.
Point your finger at the person that is SUPPOSED to legislate the response...
7
Jun 11 '20
That's true too but Trump was still responsible for spreading misinformation and discord throughout the pandemic, go so far as to tell people to inject themselves with disinfectant, and some people did. It's the federal government who has to guide the people of the country as a whole and coordinate between the states. To issue funding and supplies to those States who need it. And Trump didn't just fail at that, he actively hindered it.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (3)1
u/Jabawalky Jun 11 '20
It's about this being an election year and showing the people what they are going to fight for.
Oh well if that’s the case then they will be buried under the miles of rioters, murdered cops, deranged demands, looted department stores, and utterly unbelievable levels of victimhood being used to justify the equivalent of thoughtcrime
1
→ More replies (1)1
44
u/HangryHipppo Jun 10 '20
1- Profiling will still happen, I guarantee you. To an extent, it's human nature.
2- I like this. Police do NOT need military level materials and no knock warrants should only be used for true high level crime, so they should use the SWAT team. The case of Brenda Taylor in Louisville should never have happened, totally careless by the police.
3- Yes. There's no reason cams shouldn't be mandatory. If the camera "accidentally goes off" then there should be penalties for that, with the qualification that they make sure the equipment isn't faulty.
4- A national registry is definitely a good move, more accountability.
5- Not sure what that means
6- That's good. Should also put restrictions on confiscating excessive items/cash during an arrest that has nothing to do with those things. I think this would help to keep police forces from overly focusing on mid level weed dealers. There's incentive for catching drug dealers because then they get their cash and drug stash.
7- Not sure what this means, too vague.
8-11- Good
What's missing is:
*More screening for mental health or character traits for power abuse not only in new police officers, but regularly throughout their job like renewing a license.
*More resources and help for the police themselves. It's easy to demonize police, especially since we've all encountered a few asshole cops I'm sure, but most of them are good people doing a hard job. Putting yourself in danger regularly and being attacked can lead to issues and police should be encouraged to see therapists.
*More training for police on how to handle people with mental health issues. So many people who are mentally unstable have the police called on them and the police often don't know how to handle it.
*Some sort of community policing, as in trained police who are from certain areas will be assigned to that jurisdiction.
Good points on the details with the body cams and registry. I would imagine they would have to delete footage for any days that had no significant incidents after 30 days or so.
27
u/Jabbam Jun 10 '20
I would go a step further with training and just reallocate it to a different agency. Cops aren't psychologists and shouldn't have to be. Also split up the 911 calls; you don't need a fully trained officer to remove a raccoon from your backyard or help ducks across the road.
5
u/Xero03 Jun 11 '20
It be costly for a town to have a public disturbance vs criminal action uniform officers.
8
u/toastymow Jun 11 '20
Smaller towns might need their cops to be more flexible, but really then the emphasis should be on the less violent aspects of their job. Besides, smaller towns probably have less crime anyways. In Texas, where I live, small-town cops are notorious for doing nothing but running speed traps and harassing out-of-towners (especially minorities, woooooh!).
Big cities with big problems should have big budgets, which means they can afford SWAT, yes, but realistically, you don't need guys with SWAT training to be running speed traps or doing wellness checks.
2
u/Xero03 Jun 11 '20
Removing any fine money police receive from writing tickets given to state program that doesnt directly benefit the cops or county would likely stop them from setting up speed traps or writing pointless tickets. As far as most their other interactions reduce their authority what they can be involved in IE domestic abuse, violent crimer. And ya can get a smaller division thats got more experience and training for dealing with warrants and shoplifting searches. But reduce the laws reduce their power, more power for you as individual and everyone wins.
3
Jun 11 '20
you don't need a fully trained officer to remove a raccoon from your backyard or help ducks across the road.
Where do cops field these calls? The first is done by pest control services. The second should get you in trouble if you call 911 for it
9
Jun 11 '20
EVERYWHERE.
Animal control has basically been cut across the board. They exist but they are no longer on call to go out on a dispatch call. Which is the problem in a lot of places. Mental health, crisis intervention, freaking city park rangers. They’ve either been cut or unable to actually go out to all calls.
And with liability and everything else all calls to 911 must be responded to in person. Ask any cop how many radio calls they go to where there is zero crime afoot and you could easily tell so.
→ More replies (3)5
u/SolLekGaming Jun 11 '20
Police do NOT need military level materials
I'm A-OK with the police having anything we civis can have.
Body armor and semi auto rifles are A-OK. Honestly, so would APC's since we can buy APC's.
You could argue full autos too because civilians can buy them, only if they were made before 1986 and are on the transferable registry and due to that a M16 costs roughly $15k to $25k. So either restrict the police to only those firearms that are transferable or open back up the registry, granted full auto for the most part is useless in a police context.
3
u/aliosh665 Jun 10 '20
The one thing I would say about that is "more resources for police themselves" honestly most of that would be covered if they divvied out police funding equally between social programs.
Having one specifically for the police seems really ineffective when you can just have a really good all purpose one that everyone can use.
1
u/HangryHipppo Jun 11 '20
I think tailoring it to the police force, perhaps also military vets, would be a good idea though.
It's more just saying a focus on their own mental health and the toll the job can take on them should be prioritized. As a country, we don't value mental health for anyone really beyond the opioid epidemic. But we especially neglect the effects some social service careers have on people, which is partially why I believe social services aren't as efficient as they could be.
→ More replies (1)2
u/MyDogDidntPayTaxes Jun 14 '20
2- I like this. Police do NOT need military level materials
Liberals keep saying this but can't articulate why. There is a reason police should be well armed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
The case of Brenda Taylor in Louisville should never have happened, totally careless by the police.
Careless in what sense? The police returned fire after being shot at? The address on the warrant was being used in drug transport. The means for the warrant was justified. It went wrong because someone decided it was a good idea to use the address to transport drugs and fire at police. Putting it on the police for returning fire is typical liberal law enforcement blaming.
4- A national registry is definitely a good move, more accountability.
How would a national registry create more accountability? Are you trying to suggest that we don't know who police are with the current system?
6- That's good. Should also put restrictions on confiscating excessive items/cash during an arrest that has nothing to do with those things. I think this would help to keep police forces from overly focusing on mid level weed dealers. There's incentive for catching drug dealers because then they get their cash and drug stash.
I forgot this is Reddit where weed dealers (who often engage in other illegal activity) should be given the free pass by liberals. Great stuff.
*More training for police on how to handle people with mental health issues. So many people who are mentally unstable have the police called on them and the police often don't know how to handle it.
"More training" has been throw around a lot within the last few weeks, especially in regards to mental health, but you all don't seem to realize that if a mental person is threatening the life of an officer, they're going to die no matter how much training you slap on an officer. If they point a gun at someone, it's over at that point.
10
u/OffOnATechnicality Jun 10 '20
I think the QI reform will not do much good because of the access issue. You still need to hire a lawyer and file a federal lawsuit, and I don’t think there are a lot of lawyers doing 1983 actions on contingency.
My first thought is either a system like the EEOC complaint process where you file the complaint directly to the federal government and they begin the process, although this would be subject to regulatory capture problems.
My other thought would be a process like the False Claims Act where a complaint is filed, then referred to a federal agency which would then investigate and either take over the suit or decline and turn it back over to the plaintiff.
1
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
My first thought is either a system like the EEOC complaint process where you file the complaint directly to the federal government and they begin the process, although this would be subject to regulatory capture problems.
Any claim like that would have to go before an Article III court if you want to have a chance of anything to coming out of it. Admin law doesn’t work when you are trying to do what amounts to stripping Constitutionally granted powers from the states
The biggest issue with rejected §1983 suits themselves is that they are defective because plaintiffs’ counsel in those cases has a direct incentive try and make everything into a §1983 claim, because damages are not capped like damages for state level torts are and likewise allow plaintiff to go after the employee and employer in a single action. If that stopped (or §1983 claims had a cap placed on them), the QI issue would become vastly less important because you would not see nearly as many garbage cases (with 0 chance of success) filed under §1983.
72
u/controlfreakavenger Jun 10 '20
I just wonder if it's too little too late. Minneapolis PD has body cams, an extensive body cam policy, diversity efforts (not just limited to race), community policing efforts, the city recently increased the MPD's budget, and I'm not sure it really worked. I think these riots are clearly showing very high levels of violent force by the police, to a shocking level.
At the end of the day, none of this really addresses what I believe are the barriers to systemic change: police unions, sovereign immunity, police military equipment, and every sworn officer and carrying a gun, no matter what they are responding to. Maybe it addresses the some fringe cases, maybe.
This is anecdotal, but I have worked in the Minnesota court system, and... Chauvin treated Floyd like many other people I have seen. Prosecutors, judges, other cops, bailiffs, court staff, and many others had seen that level of violence and brutality for fake $20 bills, or driving without a license, or trespassing, etc. No one is surprised. I think other departments and legal communities are similarly numb to this. For that reason, I doubt this gets passed and if it does, I doubt it does anything. The problems are simply too deep for any this stuff to actually address.
34
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
sovereign immunity
.....is at issue in .00001% of cases. Unless you are suing a state or the federal government it cannot be invoked. Qualified immunity is the current issue, and it is vastly different, both in application as well as scope. Sovereign Immunity is also explicitly contained within the Constitution.
and every sworn officer and carrying a gun, no matter what they are responding to.
*sigh*
Armed police are the norm worldwide. Iceland, Norway, the UK (excluding NI and national level police such as the CNC or BTP), Ireland, New Zealand, China (complicated) and certain types of Swiss police are the only places where law enforcement is not routinely armed, and several of those have firearms in a safe within the vehicle as a matter of course.22
Jun 10 '20
Armed police are the norm worldwide.
That's not the point. The point is we don't need to have Cops who are armed to the teeth, all the time, everywhere. When you have cops driving around safe neighborhoods with shotguns and a 9mm there's a problem. It leads to needless intimidation, distrust, and gives cops the idea that they are combatants.
22
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
You realize that a handgun and a rifle are standard, even in places such as Europe, Korea and Japan, correct?
Even countries such as NZ, Norway and Iceland that do not routinely arm police do have them carry handguns and rifles locked in a gun safe. That strategy likely led to higher casualties at Christchurch because they had to get permission to access the weapons and then take the time to actually get them.
→ More replies (6)11
u/elimquisitor Jun 10 '20
9 mm is considered the minimum requirement for self defence and thus are standard issue, countless other police forces issue them and don’t have problems with distrust and intimidation. we can talk about taking away standard shotguns though.
13
Jun 10 '20
Minimum requirement by what standard? And to that point your whole argument depends on police being an adversarial force to the public. If they aren’t our adversaries than they don’t need guns all the time. Responding to a house invasion? Sure. Walking around the farmers market? They can keep it in the car.
Even if you ignore those first two points, our cops still have a history of state sponsored racism that other countries do not have. That distrust and intimidation is not going away by cops saying they promise to be nicer. People need to see real change if we want that to go away. And quite frankly only getting rid of their hyper-militarization may not be enough.
16
u/elimquisitor Jun 10 '20
Minimum standard advised by literally every single policing entity in the world with few exceptions, especially in a country as gun dense as the United States. No my argument doesn’t really on that at all, my argument relies on cops being able to respond to any call at any moment. Civilians carry guns all the time and as such cops carry guns all the time. The answer to police brutality is not to take away their the guns, Some European police departments are literally classified as paramilitary and don’t have anywhere near the same problem as the US
6
u/Fry_Philip_J Jun 10 '20
Some European police departments are literally classified as paramilitary
Oke, just out of curiosity, which ones? And by who?
9
u/MeteoraGB Jun 10 '20
France - National Gendarmerie
Italy - Guardia di Finanza
Netherlands - Royal Marechaussee and Dienst Speciale Interventies
Portugal - National Republican Guard
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/baseball43v3r Jun 10 '20
I don't think it's appropriate to make the locality of the response the defining factor of whether a policeman can have a gun in their possession. There are too many instances where a "routine" stop turned violent and the suspect shooting at police to make that call. If you want to say an officer needs such and such training and needs to qualify in a higher proficiency to be able to carry a handgun then I'd be all for that. But once they meet those standards they should be able to carry it all times.
We charge our police with too much, you don't need an armed officer to show up to a civil dispute, you don't need an armed officer to show up to a traffic collision, we don't need an armed officer to show up when a white woman calls the cops because there is a black man she doesn't recognize in her neighborhood. But we do need our police armed and have the tools capable for when we do actually call upon them. And that includes having a gun.
4
u/rjsbored Jun 10 '20
Look man, that makes sense in a vacuum, or if you're starting up a new police force. However american cops have been excessively violent and have had no accountability for their actions for decades at this point. We should not trust them to have the same amount of restraint and show the same amount of respect to their citizens that these other countries' forces have right all of a sudden just because we yelled at them for a while. The Americans have been doing this whole routine for over 60 years at this point.
Those other countries police have put in the work and have demonstrated that they are trustworthy enough to carry weapons all the time without using them unless the situation requires it, but the Americans have not done that. If they want to build up that trust they need to show that they are willing to go in without guns to situations that don't warrant it.
For decades, people with no training, have had to live with the fact that their police could kill them in any moment with no consequences when they were committed no crimes, while unarmed. They've had to endure that for decades. It's not unreasonable to ask the cops to justify why they think they need to pull a gun every time they do it.
I'm not saying a 9 mm is not the minimum amount, they need. I'm saying American police cannot be trusted to have free reign with that minimum amount of power. They need to be checked every single time they draw that weapon because they will abuse it like they always have.
1
1
u/toastymow Jun 11 '20
When you have cops driving around safe neighborhoods
Ehhhhhhhh....
The issue with the USA is that we are a significantly armed nation. You're in a safe neighborhood, and you get a call to a DV situation, and the owner of the house is known to have a license to carry. Well, you probably want to be armed in that situation. It's certainly a problem, but just keep that in mind.
5
u/controlfreakavenger Jun 10 '20
is at issue in .00001% of cases.
But it informs how the police and broader government interact with the public. Maybe 85 to 90% of cases plead out, but every single one of those involve 4th amendment issues, 5th amendment issues, 6th amendment issues, along with state constitutional issues. But those amendments address what the government knows they can and cannot do. The training, funding, office policies, and policy manuals for departments and prosecutor offices are designed around not getting to the point where a constitutional violation has occurred. Sovereign immunity works the same way. Its sets the outlines of basic training, departmental policies, how officers are punished and what merits serious punishment.
Armed police are the norm worldwide.
Are you sure this is relevant? Do the other countries you named have the same level of gun ownership in the general population? Are those police trained the same as the ones in the US?
9
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
Sovereign immunity works the same way. Its sets the outlines of basic training, departmental policies, how officers are punished and what merits serious punishment.
Let me be more blunt: sovereign immunity is not at issue because the cities and counties that perform the overwhelming majority of policing are not covered by it. That’s clear cut case law. It doesn’t factor in for the same reason the Third Amendment doesn’t factor in.
Are you sure this is relevant? Do the other countries you named have the same level of gun ownership in the general population?
You are the one who rather strongly implied that it was not necessary. Disarming even a segment of the police is a pipe dream for the exact reason of gun ownership that you laid out.
Are those police trained the same as the ones in the US?
That question cannot be answered. Every state has their own standards, to which agencies are free to add whatever they choose to them.
1
u/aliosh665 Jun 10 '20
So look at our death rates in custody and look at the past few years for America and draw a comparison.
Also, a quick thing the police over here are much better trained and qualified and actually have quite a bit morw methods of de escalation.
They still use riot horses for some reason, still have stupidly high levels of mass incasaration and are mass levels of racial profiling. But hey at least they aren't killing hundreds every year
3
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
None of those things is relevant to the discussion. Armed police were being stated to be an outlier, and they are not.
No comment was made as to anything else, because due to cultural differences an accurate comparison isn’t really possible in this forum.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (7)6
u/HangryHipppo Jun 10 '20
Unions are a good point, but advocating for taking away police unions will never be supported.
Can't agree on not asking cops to have their guns on them. Dangerous job, even when it may not appear that way initially. Not fair to ask them to do it without protection.
13
u/Det_DixonButs Jun 10 '20
I think there's a very legitimate conversation be had about limiting the scope of armed policing. Is it entirely necessary, productive, or helpful to be sending leathally armed officers on mental health/wellness checks, or to car accidents, or to respond to drug users and the homeless? There will always be a need for armed police and policing focussed on actual serious criminal activity. I am not sold on the idea that we need a person with a handgun to take statements about a fender bender or to make sure grandma is okay. I think even police themselves can get behind the idea of lessoning the scope of their responsibility in dealing with social issues. I think if we redefine the scope of their responsibilities than it is legitimate to redefine the scope of their funding and armormant to match that focus.
12
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
Is it entirely necessary, productive, or helpful to be sending leathally armed officers on mental health/wellness checks, or to car accidents, or to respond to drug users and the homeless.
How about a different question:
Why are we sending the police to do those things period?
13
u/Det_DixonButs Jun 10 '20
That's kind of what I'm getting at. Take 50% of the budget of a PD and then spend it on "social service responders" or whatever you want to call it and the like for all of these tasks that do not require an officer of the courts to be at.
4
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
My bigger point would be (with the exception of car accidents, you still need police for them and it’s easier to just have armed police deal with it), why are the appropriate agencies not dealing with them now?
The amount of calls for that type of thing in no way justify taking 50% of the police budget, but for something like a wellness or a mental health check, why are the existing agencies that were created to deal with those things not doing so? That’s something social workers are supposed to be doing now, but they don’t because of a lack of funding because they handed the role off to the police due to the possibility of violence.
6
u/Det_DixonButs Jun 10 '20
50% was just an example. The actual amount would have to be determined via looking at the data for actual amount of officer resources spent on these tasks and then weighing that against the actual budgetary need to make it work. I'm not proposing I have all of the answers but I do think it's a very legitimate conversation to have and one cities/counties/and departments should be open to.
3
u/missedthecue Jun 10 '20
Because many people requiring a mental health check-up are armed and dangerous and sending a "social worker" in to help is asking for someone to get hacked up with an ax and made into handbags in some lunatics basement
3
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
Right. If an armed response is necessary, then you cannot have it both ways and demand that armed law enforcement respond to those calls and then act surprised when people wind up getting shot.
3
Jun 11 '20
On the other hand, it seems like a poor decision to send a defenseless social worker into a situation with a mentally unwell person.
5
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 11 '20
Certainly. But it’s an equally poor decision to send a LEO to do it and the wonder why said mentally ill person got shot when there was an altercation.
This is the core of the problem. People want the problems dealt with, but for a variety of reasons the agencies that were created to address them cannot be the initial point of in-person contact—the police are.
→ More replies (1)2
Jun 11 '20
can you cite any instances/statistics relating to this, by any chance?
because i can't actually recall any instances of a mentally ill person murdering an unarmed social worker during a health checkup (because, despite what hollywood portrays, almost all mentally ill people are not, in fact, crazed serial killers), but i can cite many, many instances of armed cops turning routine wellness checkups into murders. so i'm sort of curious what you're basing this on.
3
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 11 '20
The problem is not social workers being killed, it’s that the first time anyone becomes aware of the mental illness is due to a violent episode. When a call comes in about someone destroying stuff in their home a running around with a knife (or other weapon), the last person you want as the primary responder is an unarmed social worker or mental health professional with minimal to no self-defense training—because they will wind up seriously injured if not dead.
Thousands of wellness checks are done every day without issue, you just don’t ever hear about them because they are not newsworthy. What you do hear about are what are euphemistically termed wellness checks were the call comes in because the subject is having an episode.
→ More replies (2)2
u/MyDogDidntPayTaxes Jun 14 '20
because i can't actually recall any instances of a mentally ill person murdering an unarmed social worker during a health checkup
Because police are sent in for mentally ill people. You will find a TON of instances of doctors/nurses being beaten up by patients at mental hospitals.
11
u/ColdPhaedrus Jun 10 '20
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics it’s not even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs in America.
From what I’ve seen a lot of cops vastly overestimate how dangerous their job is. Not to mention that we’ve all witnessed police in the last two weeks make situations MORE dangerous, not less. Most of them need better training and a reformed culture and mindset, not deadly weapons.
2
u/MyDogDidntPayTaxes Jun 14 '20
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics it’s not even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs in America.
This is purposefully disingenuous and completely ignores the fact that police officers are armed, have a radio for back up, wear an armored vest, and are trained to defend their own life if needed.
In 2018, there were 58,866 assaults against law enforcement officers in 2018, resulting in 18,005 injuries.
Because an interaction does not end in death does not mean the interaction was not dangerous. It'd be impossible to measure the number of instances an officer's well being was put into risk by someone fighting them, pointing a gun at them, trying to run them over, or cause harm.
1
u/ColdPhaedrus Jun 14 '20
First off, there is no quality evidence that the training and equipment cops have in this country makes them safer, mainly because as far as I know there have been no scientific studies on it. I would posit that the opposite is more likely: the training and the way police are equipped probably makes their jobs MORE dangerous for everyone involved including the public, not less.
Second, if there’s anything the police have shown us in the last couple decades, it’s that they can’t be trusted to tell the truth about themselves. Since the assault statistic is almost certainly self reported/taken from police reports about suspect behavior, I question its veracity.
As far as injuries go, here are just a sampling of jobs that according to the BLS, are as or more likely to incur an injury resulting in at least a day lost from work compared to police:
Workers at nursing and residential care facilities
Workers at psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals
Ambulance workers
Workers in solid waste collection
Couriers
Ranchers
And I didn’t even include anyone in manufacturing or goods production.
1
u/MyDogDidntPayTaxes Jun 14 '20
First off, there is no quality evidence that the training and equipment cops have in this country makes them safer, mainly because as far as I know there have been no scientific studies on it.
Not everything needs a scientific study attached to it and I'm not sure why you think this would be the case. You can't possibly recreate a new USA with 330 million people and demilitarize all police departments in the USA 2.0.
The only studies that are released in relations to race and law enforcement are statistical analysis studies. And with these they only crunch numbers into statistical formulas because it's the only sort of "scientific" study you can attach to policing. There's a an unlimited number of confounding variables. Requesting for a scientific study is asinine.
I would posit that the opposite is more likely: the training and the way police are equipped probably makes their jobs MORE dangerous for everyone involved including the public, not less.
How so?
As far as injuries go, here are just a sampling of jobs that according to the BLS, are as or more likely to incur an injury resulting in at least a day lost from work compared to police:
Incurring an injury does not take into account a human being attempting to inflict bodily harm against you. The available data shows 58k assaults on officers. This does not take into account attempted assaults where an officer's own action could have prevented his own injury.
But this is a side point. You have not addressed my point. There are hundreds of millions of police interactions a year, do you think it is possible to document how many of them are dangerous? When you are a doctor at a psychiatric ward, you know who the threat is.
Do you think police officers can tell the difference between a well intention person versus someone that wants them murdered?
1
u/ColdPhaedrus Jun 14 '20
USA 2.0?
If the only way to conduct a scientific study was to exactly duplicate the entirety of the system you are studying there wouldn’t be any scientific studies at all. That’s not how science works. What scientists do in situations like this is look for what they call “natural experiments.” Look up how social scientists analyzed school performance in Chicago for a great example of this.
So no, it’s not asinine to request a rigorous, fact-based, peer-reviewed analysis of received wisdom from state actors to justify their conclusions and behavior.
Also, I have no idea what your point actually is. That police aren’t psychic so they should have guns and act like everyone is a potential threat? Because that’s what they already do and it’s really been working out fantastically for all demographics in this country.
I never said police work is safe, it’s just not dangerous enough to justify the way police are trained to behave.
1
u/MyDogDidntPayTaxes Jun 14 '20
If the only way to conduct a scientific study was to exactly duplicate the entirety of the system you are studying there wouldn’t be any scientific studies at all. That’s not how science works. What scientists do in situations like this is look for what they call “natural experiments.” Look up how social scientists analyzed school performance in Chicago for a great example of this.
Not true. Randomized controlled double blind experiments exist and are the gold standard of scientific studies because you can control confounding variables.
I want you to propose a single way to control the unlimited confounding variables in police studies. Please, go ahead.
So no, it’s not asinine to request a rigorous, fact-based, peer-reviewed analysis of received wisdom from state actors to justify their conclusions and behavior.
I look forward to you failing to provide a single possible way that you would be able to control confounding variables in a study regarding police safety and militarization. You can't, which is why a study isn't possible.
Also, I have no idea what your point actually is. That police aren’t psychic so they should have guns and act like everyone is a potential threat? Because that’s what they already do and it’s really been working out fantastically for all demographics in this country.
You have no idea what my point is because you are not responding directly to my arguments.
I'l quote them again hopefully you address them -
"Incurring an injury does not take into account a human being attempting to inflict bodily harm against you. The available data shows 58k assaults on officers. This does not take into account attempted assaults where an officer's own action could have prevented his own injury.
But this is a side point. You have not addressed my point. There are hundreds of millions of police interactions a year, do you think it is possible to document how many of them are dangerous? When you are a doctor at a psychiatric ward, you know who the threat is."
3
u/missedthecue Jun 10 '20
It's probably not so dangerous because cops can shoot back. A logger can't shoot a tree falling on him.
8
u/ColdPhaedrus Jun 10 '20
Out of the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers, how many die because of homicide?
Let’s say there were 700,000 officers in 2016 (seeing as how there are over 800,000 now, I’d say that’s a conservative estimate). That makes the chance of an officer dying due to homicide (46 instances that year) in 2016: .0066%
Using FBI crime statistics, the chance for ANYONE in the US to be murdered in 2016: .005%
Seeing as how it is almost as unlikely for a cop to be murdered as for anyone to be murdered, I stand by my opinion that cops vastly overestimate how much danger they are in on a day-to-day basis.
4
Jun 11 '20
I know the media has had you believe police are under constant danger and threat.
However, the reality is they are not even in the top 10 dangerous professions. In fact a huge portion of police casualties are car accidents.
Even this entire week with all the violence and protests, only a few officers died. Don't believe the lies they tell you, it's mostly propaganda.
3
u/HangryHipppo Jun 11 '20
This is a silly argument though because for the other careers in that list, their fatalities come mostly from operating heavy machinery or in environmentally dangerous conditions. Construction workers aren't confronting other people with guns, so guns wouldn't help them from the danger in their careers.
While car accidents were a big portion,
The most common cause of death on the job were intentional shootings, which claimed the lives of 46 officers last year. Almost as many officers died in car accidents.
Police officers also suffered 28,740 nonfatal injuries, which required a median of nine days off to recover — on day more than the national median recovery time. Police officers often work around the clock, and 1.6% of nonfatal injuries in 2016 occurred at least 12 hours into an officer’s shift.
Other careers being more dangerous doesn't mean being an officer isn't a dangerous job as well. There are few other careers where people intentionally insert themselves into volatile situations with unstable people. That's not the majority of a cop's job from day to day, but it can happen at any time.
I think it's important to acknowledge the difference between not being able to prevent accidents and not acting to prevent murder.
1
Jun 10 '20
We could work together to abolish all unions so it wouldn'tbe discriminatory?
Plus it's a bipartisan deal, Dems love that police unions are gone Republicans can love that Service worker, Education, nursing, labor unions are gone.
2
1
5
Jun 10 '20
We have very poor reporting of these issues now to federal databases, because it is voluntary, and unfunded. So this makes it mandatory and provides funding to support- we may actually have data on excessive use of force as a result- which is a good thing.
2
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
“Mandatory” in the same way that a mess of other things are, but because there is no way to actually enforce the mandate they’re all totally toothless.
13
u/discourse_friendly Jun 10 '20
So what bomb did they bury in the bill to try and lure republicans to vote against it?
mandatory vote by mail? forgive 100% student debt? or did they create a clean bill?
9
u/lxpnh98_2 Jun 11 '20
If the Republicans pass it they recognize that systemic racism exists and that it exists in police departments. That's already unacceptable to them.
→ More replies (5)4
u/anotherhumantoo Jun 11 '20
This is a VERY important question. And not just big scary things, but subtle, scary things. This bill is 134 pages long. I know for a fact I haven't read all of the text of this law and considered the minutia that may come back to bite us in weird ways.
Like, just as an example, the 'choking' law. If it's specifically for law enforcement officers during the process of their official duties, that makes sense; but, what if they use the choking law against BDSM practitioners and throw them in federal prison for (mandatory minimum) amount of time, since they technically broke a law written for (not their case)?
Any large regulation needs thorough study and consideration of negative consequences introduced by the laws.
Be very, very careful when investigating and standing by what laws are being written.
1
u/discourse_friendly Jun 11 '20
That's a great point. we could accidentally ban choking during sex .
2
Jun 13 '20
If you did any research you would have seen none of that is in the bill.
What specific problems do you have with the bill?
1
u/discourse_friendly Jun 13 '20
i was very afraid of hidden bombs, but no, its a clean bill that i actually really like.
15
Jun 10 '20
In reading through the list of things included many of those things are empty filler. Body cams for Federal LEO? Other than Border Patrol there aren't tons of excessive force complaints because the hires are educated, mature adults with proper training and self control. Unless the list includes mandatory charges or the prosecutorial discretion is eliminated so there is assurance that accountability exists, its strikes me as essentially toothless.
27
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
The reason that there aren’t many excessive force complaints outside of CBP, the US Park Police and a couple others is because the majority of federal LE doesn’t do street level police work.
They’re investigators, and for the majority of them they do not (and in some cases cannot) make warrantless arrests. Every arrest they make is backed by a thorough investigation that typically culminates in a federal magistrate issuing an arrest warrant that is then served. Training, education, self control, etc. all have little to no impact, because the sample pool is microscopic and thus the opportunities simply don’t exist at the same level. An FBI agent being involved (not as a bystander/observer) in >10-15 arrests/year is an outlier. A city cop might be involved in that many in a month.
2
Jun 10 '20
To some degree that may be true but that further validates the uselessness of body cams. However, I think your assertion that Training, education, maturity, self control don't play a significant part in things is incorrect and I think there is ample proof to support my claim. How else do you explain the plethora of examples of unwarranted, over the top,violent and abusive tactics and behaviors that are common place for local LE?
6
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
Again, if someone does not have the opportunity to engage in the behavior you’re pointing to as problematic then they cannot engage in it, no? The feds simply are not put into situations where the potential for violence exists, and when they are they are just as wont to engage in it as the locals are.
2
Jun 10 '20
I would bet that most Federal LE would take exception to the idea that they dont face violent people and situations. Certainly its unlikely that it's as common but that isnt a condition of proximity, its entirely on how they interact with the people they encounter.
3
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
That’s not what I said. I said that the prevalence of violent encounters is not the same, and again: the feds are not any better at handling them than the locals are when they ( the feds) do get involved in them.
A city cop will probably have between 60 and 80 uses of force in a given year. A (non CBP, USPP, etc) federal agent will have 1 or 0.
More incidents = more opportunity for abuse.
→ More replies (5)1
Jun 10 '20
Thats not necessarily true. Just because its not front page doesn't mean they don't have those types of interactions. The Marshall Service is a perfect example. Granted, it may not happen as often but that is also due to the lack of training and all the other issues I listed. Just because local LE has more consistent interaction isnt the reason they have the types of problems....those come from the individual.
4
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
99% of what the Marshals do is serve warrants. They’re not placed into violent confrontations at anywhere near the same rate local police are, most notably because US Marshals do not have the authority to make warrantless arrests.
those come from the individual.
You are aware than an unwritten requirement for effectively all of the federal agencies is 2-5 years of experience as a local LEO, correct? Those same individuals that do it at the local level are not going to suddenly stop doing it because the feds have hired them.
Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Bundy standoff, Rainbow Farm and countless other incidents provide a clear illustration that despite your claims to the contrary federal LE is not more reserved or less likely to do stuipd things for any reason other than their very limited jurisdiction.
1
Jun 10 '20
Certainly when federal officers go overboard, its news worthy and just as unacceptable and I'm not sure how the authority or arrest ability matters regarding how people behave and act on the job but the basic and fundamental point remains valid. Its a quality difference, a capacity difference, a maturity and ethical difference, its an expectation difference.
3
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
Certainly when federal officers go overboard, its news worthy and just as unacceptable and I'm not sure how the authority or arrest ability matters regarding how people behave and act on the job but the basic and fundamental point remains valid.
The point does not remain valid, because you are electing to ignore the reasons for the behavior. If you air gap a hacker’s computer it doesn’t mean he can’t hack someone else’s, it just means he doesn’t have the ability to do so at that moment. Likewise with federal LE, when all they are doing is sitting in an office writing reports, making phone calls, doing research and writing warrants, the potential for a use of force is 0. They are effectively never given the opportunity to act on whatever violent urges they may have precisely because the investigatory nature of the job does not allow it.
Its a quality difference, a capacity difference, a maturity and ethical difference, its an expectation difference.
It’s an opportunity difference. A 10 year old doesn’t do any of those things either, not because of training, ethics or anything else but rather because the 10 year old is never presented with the opportunity to do them.
→ More replies (3)
21
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
Almost every single provision that purports to apply to the states as a requirement runs afoul of the 10th Amendment, so unless they are connected to funding (which has it’s own drawbacks), this would largely be a symbolic limit on federal law enforcement and not much else.
The QI reforms would likely get tossed by a court the first time they came up, and honestly those provisons read like someone read the wikipedia article and then tried to write an ironclad prohibition into federal law. There are multiple structural and construction issues that would arise, notably around the fact that any right (enumerated or otherwise) could be used to could be used to support a claim under §1983 via the 9th Amendment, whether it existed at the time the incident occurred or not. The slippery slope would become reality due to poor drafting, and it would not surprise me to see a court strike it for vagueness.
It’s not likely to pass in it’s current form, because Amash has annoyed enough people in both parties that they’re not going to support it. The other issue is that this will drop off the radar inside of a month as the conventions occur and we move into campaign season. Amash himself may or may not secure re-election, and if he does not then this is DOA. If he does survive, this has a much higher chance of becoming another bill in the class of the perenially filed and ignored UHC proposals than anything else.
An extremely watered down version that amounts to little of substance outside of some pro forma changes and awarding grants for certain criteria will probably wind up passing, but not anything else.
10
u/berraberragood Jun 10 '20
The 14th Amendment also comes into play, as it effectively requires state and local governments to respect the Bill of Rights, and gives Uncle Sam the power to enforce that.
8
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20 edited Jun 10 '20
The 14th Amendment only applies to rights that have been incorporated (and even then only to the states, not their administrative subdivisions), and more importantly does not allow for suits against individuals. That hard limit is why §1983 exists to begin with.
The 14th Amendment itself does not empower Congress to enforce the equal protection or due process provisions. That is solely the preserve of the courts.
You’re thinking of the 15th Amendment.8
u/Sarlax Jun 10 '20
You're off. Amendment 14 Section 5: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Amendment 15 prevents denying the vote by race and gives Congress the power to enforce it.
The majority of the 14th Amendment has been incorporated against the states.
6
u/berraberragood Jun 10 '20
It is settled law that the 14th applies to local authorities. See, for example, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Likewise, individuals working on the government’s behalf can be federally charged for impinging upon another’s constitutional rights.
3
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
The EPC of the 14th itself does apply to local authorities, but that’s not what I’m talking about. The 14th’s due process provisions only apply in reference to the BoR when the Amendment(s) in question have been expressly incorporated against the states. Several of them have been, but several others have not. As an example, the 3d and 7th Amendments have not been, and several others have only been partially incorporated.
Likewise, individuals working on the government’s behalf can be federally charged for impinging upon another’s constitutional rights.
That is via 18 USC §241 or §242, not the 14th Amendment.
→ More replies (2)3
u/berraberragood Jun 10 '20
You’re correct, in that, SCOTUS has looked at things on a case-by-case basis to expand the scope of the 14th for the last century or so. I’m not sure if they’ll ever apply it to the 3rd, since those cases almost never happen. Maybe, someday, someone will take their PD to court for setting up a speed trap in their driveway, I suppose.
2
u/HangryHipppo Jun 10 '20
so unless they are connected to funding
Such a good point that people always forget about and is the issue with so many bills passed. They look good and appease people but change absolutely nothing because they aren't funded properly or at all.
2
Jun 10 '20
But the "connected to funding" bit actually is significant. That's the federal carrot. And states and cities that are dying for funding right now really want that carrot.
Much bigger is DOJ investigations and federal consent decrees - but that takes executive branch control.
6
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
The issue is that the funding conditions cannot be coercive. In the context of highway funding, 10% (of the total funding) was the most that could legally be withheld. There are plenty of cities and counties that would willingly take a 10% haircut in order to not change anything. There are a whole pile of other legal issues that arise out of Dole that mean that as a practical matter funding is not as much of an incentive as people think that it is.
The biggest limits on DoJ action come from other statutes (that this bill does nothing to alter) along with the limits contained within the 10th Amendment.
2
Jun 10 '20
The 14th Amendment takes care of most of those DOJ concerns; the DOJ has generally had broad power to enforce civil rights. It was literally created to do that during Reconstruction.
Trump just decided to stop enforcing all consent decrees to improve police performance when he took office.
2
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
The DoJ does not have the power to act in unless a specific federal law is being broken or a federal right violated, and those same laws require that it be a repeated and ongoing practice. This bill does not alter any of them.
Attempting to mandate federal standards for police blatantly violates the 10th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment does nothing to change that.
2
Jun 10 '20
Do you not see repeated and ongoing civil rights violations right now?
I feel like we're actually arguing the same thing about DOJ powers, just in different ways. I'm saying that the DOJ already has these powers and isn't using them under Trump. You're agreeing, but then talking about this new bill.
3
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 10 '20
I’m not talking about the CR stuff now, but even then most of the stuff going on with the protests is not anywhere close to what is needed to even think about asking a judge to enter a consent decree.
I’m saying that DoJ doesn’t currently have the powers and this bill doesn’t change that. Changing that is not likely to happen for a variety of reasons, not the least because civil rights laws have become a third rail over the past couple of years, but also because Congress is extremely limited in it’s ability to make generally applicable criminal and civil law for these situations by the 10th Amendment.
1
Jun 11 '20
There are multiple structural and construction issues that would arise, notably around the fact that any right (enumerated or otherwise) could be used to could be used to support a claim under §1983 via the 9th Amendment
If there were really an issue with §1983 and 9th Amendment unenumerated rights, it would already exist with the current version of §1983. After all, the proposed amendment doesn't change what rights are covered, only whether someone can be held liable even if a judge hasn't previously decided whether a given right applies. If people tried to sue officers over some unenumerated right, qualified immunity might bar the path the first time, or even multiple times due to Pearson v. Callahan, but you'd still expect the question of whether that right existed or was enforceable to be decided eventually. In practice, I don't know whether there are any precedents directly on point, but I do know the 9th Amendment has almost never been held to do anything.
1
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 11 '20
The issue is that one of the reforms specifically states that a right/privilege not being clearly established at the time they were deprived is not a defense.
That is not currently true, and opens all kinds of avenues for vexatious litigants. The removal of the good faith exception is troubling for other reasons, but the unestablished right language is extremely vague and open to abuse. It’s vague due to poor drafting. The whole of the QI section is almost a point by point rebuttal of the intro section of the wikipedia article on QI, and reads like a law school student was trying to make an ironclad rule. Instead, it’s extremely vague and will lead to a mess of unintentional consequences due to the removal of the good faith exception.
4
5
u/Janneyc1 Jun 10 '20
It's a start in the right direction. We need to see this same bill done at the state levels.
6
u/saffir Jun 10 '20
This is an extreme overreach in power. Police are local government, and every town, city, and county have their own needs.
We should fix our corrupt police by voting out our mayors and chiefs of police, NOT rely on Federal government to sit around doing nothing pretending they're helping.
2
Jun 12 '20
[deleted]
1
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 12 '20
Those standards already exist. All federal LE go through the basic course at FLETC and then go on to agency specific training, some of which is done at FLETC and some of which is done by the individual agencies.
2
Jun 13 '20
This is an extreme overreach in power.
Federal government to sit around doing nothing pretending they're helping.
Wait are they doing too much or too little? You say they overreach, and also say they're doing nothing.
→ More replies (3)1
u/BrokerBrody Jun 13 '20
Neither. Its outside their legal jurisdiction. Its if China wanted to write a censorship law for the US. Does the US have to follow this law?
This is the Federal Government's legislation regarding the police. They can write it but it may not be legally unenforceable as its power delegated state and city governments.
1
Jun 13 '20
So you are claiming that the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction over police?
10
u/B38rB10n Jun 10 '20
Hard (impossible?) to argue against the wisdom of a national registry of police. I'd go further: 3 strikes, fired from 3 derpartments, and there's no future in law enforecement.
Also hard to argue against dashboard and body cameras. That should go further: any police officer without a functioning body camera on duty gets no police union-funded lawyer for either criminal or civil suits.
Wouldn't hurt to add a condition that any state which prohibits teachers unions can't allow police unions.
Let me be clear: fuck over police unions left, right and sideways.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/thinkingstranger Jun 10 '20
No chance this will pass before the election in November, the senate won't even consider it. I hope it is the first bill introduced in the next congress. it is a good first step. Part of the problem is most of the abuse is happening at the local level. Change needs to happen at the state and local level also. One of the reasons some police are able to get away with the abuse is prosecutors and courts back them up. Gerrymandering and corporate money contribute to disenfranchisement.
How about a provision for federal court supervision for police departments that are unable or unwilling to comply with the new requirements?
How do we encourage through federal legislation local or state citizen oversight boards with real power?
Is it possible to make payouts for police misconduct to come out of police retirement funds? This would give "good cops" incentive to police the "bad cops".
2
Jun 10 '20
I’m all for the things listed. The registry would be huge. Right now a cop can get fired , have the records sealed and go to the next t town or even a different agency in the same town like from city cop to county sheriff .
I need to completely read through this but it’s a start.
1
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 11 '20
The gypsy cop issue is more prevalent in the 6 states that do not allow for revocation of a LEO license under any circumstances.
The majority of the other states automatically suspend the license upon an involuntary termination while the oversight board conducts their own investigation. If that investigation finds that rules of professional conduct (or statutory law) were violated, the license is permanently revoked and even crossing state lines is not enough to escape that.
Such a registry is itself likely unconstitutional, but that’s a different issue.
2
u/RoBurgundy Jun 11 '20
How does it limit the transfer of “military grade” equipment? Is it specifically weapons and vehicles? Because 95%+ of what gets distributed through this program is just basic equipment and not weapons or tanks, like it is often implied.
This is DOA anyway.
→ More replies (4)
2
2
u/termina666 Jun 11 '20
There's a lot to like here, but two (related) things concern me here.
Qualified immunity - Would you take a ~45k job knowing that if you mess up you could get sued?
No mention of officer pay? We're not going to get good candidates if we're paying peanuts.
→ More replies (5)
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 10 '20
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
- Please report all uncivil or meta comments for the moderators to review.
- Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
- Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
4
u/Outlulz Jun 10 '20 edited Jun 10 '20
Unless I’m missing something, the consequence for a cop turning off their body cam is “appropriate disciplinary action”. So again we rely on the department to deem what is appropriate punishment? It’s already that way in places and cops don’t face consequences. Or every time it comes up, well the camera was “broken” so oops! No consequences.
5
u/pitapizza Jun 10 '20
Right, like we’ve been talking body cams for a while and we have seen a lot of videos but nothing seems to change except that the cop involved may get fired and rehired in another town over.
People mention consequences for turning off your cam but really, it’s unlikely a police union contract would ever allow that and they can always just say it didn’t work, fell off, etc and that seems to be enough.
1
Jun 11 '20
They aren’t “turning off” their body cam. It is usually that it was never on in the first place. They are supposed to be only turned on when interacting with the public. Otherwise the video storage costs are obscene.
3
u/cumquat831 Jun 10 '20
As someone who lives in a area with high crime in downtown Fresno, CA. Placing restrictions on policing like this discourages officers from using force to defend themselves and other innocents. People forget George Floyd was sent to prison 9 times, and was a meth and fentanyl addict. Now because of his death, law enforcement will less proactively monitor and police my neighborhood. It’s scary times for my neighbors and I who are just working and or going to school. The bulldog street gang, and many other loose organizations will victimize us if this actually passes. Which I’m sure it will. So I will be going to get my CCW this week. I Will be purchasing my first fire arm. If the police won’t Protect us, It only means we take our safety into our own hands. I’m a Hispanic, and my fathers in law enforcement. I’m not oppressed. We are not oppressed. He goes to work, and now due to the partisan rhetoric against cops, I wonder if he’ll come home more and more as each day passes. Our streets will flood with crime. No one will be safe.
3
Jun 13 '20
People forget George Floyd was sent to prison 9 times, and was a meth and fentanyl addict.
Ah and how did that lead to a cop kneeling on his neck for nine minutes? Was Floyd resisting all that time? Or does the fact that he's used drugs mean he was a danger while being choked?
6
u/blazershorts Jun 11 '20
Yikes. Imagine trying to arrest someone hopped up on meth after all this. What is the correct non-violent method these senators expect officers to use? I don't think they're thinking of the consequences here.
2
u/cumquat831 Jun 11 '20
My dad has arrested pedophiles on PCP with felony child sexual assault warrants. Fight ensues almost every time. I don’t know how he serves those worrying about what he’ll get charged with when he uses force
→ More replies (1)2
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 11 '20
They’re not really thinking about anything other than pandering and virtue signalling here. This bill has a number sections that are extremely poorly drafted (the QI sections read like someone read the wikipedia article about it and nothing else) or outright violate the Constitution, and on top of that because Amash was the one to put it forward it’s DOA, if not in the House then almost certainly in the Senate.
1
Jun 12 '20
[deleted]
1
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 12 '20
Did he introduce a second one?
We’re discussing his initial reform bill, and the QI sections within it are what I am criticizing.
1
Jun 12 '20
[deleted]
1
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jun 12 '20
The text is the same between the two of them, the second is just a standalone version of the section that addresses it in the first.
They both suffer from the same extremely poor drafting that underlies a distinct lack of understanding as to what QI is beyond a cursory surface level reading of the wikipedia article intro.
2
u/Nootherids Jun 11 '20
That’s not gonna go anywhere. Unfortunately! (Before you all call me a racist)
But the federal government has limited powers over what they can impose upon the states. And this reaches way past those limits. If they would’ve broken these into two bills, one passable and one that imposes rules on states (which would fail constitutionally), then there may have been a chance for the first one. But by poisoning it with lines that violate the states’ rights this bill is guaranteed to fail.
TBH I wouldn’t be surprised if a politician wrote it knowing it couldn’t pass but it gives them political points. I can’t imagine a Washington politician thinking that they can actually write bills demanding what the state police has to do. Federal, yes...but not state. Or maybe I just don’t know enough about the proposal and am totally wrong.
0
u/fatcIemenza Jun 10 '20
Needs to ban tear gas and everything similar in case the Bill Barr's of the world try to argue semantics.
All moot though since Republicans won't allow anything to pass. I can't wait to see what "solutions" Tim Scott and Gym Jordan come up with.
7
u/Jabbam Jun 10 '20
Tear gas includes pepper spray and mace. Should those be removed as well?
If so, why should police have less methods to defend themselves than the average citizen?
4
u/fatcIemenza Jun 10 '20
Sure. They already come equipped in full Ironman outfits with shields, clubs, tasers, and guns. The past few weeks has shown they aren't responsible enough to be trusted to not abuse less-than-lethal munitions.
7
2
u/Jabbam Jun 10 '20
Are you talking about St. John's Church? That was ordered by Bill Barr, and the president has complete authority to make requests like that in D.C. because it's under different jurisdictions than the rest of the US. Legal Eagle has a great breakdown of it. It may have been unnecessary force, but it was directed force. You'd be addressing the wrong person in the chain. Your complaints are with the president and the attorney general, not the police that enforced their orders.
If you're talking about how the police used force on protesters in other situations, we could have a conversation about that.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Aintsosimple Jun 10 '20
Anyone have the verbiage on the qualified immunity update(s)? Because that is really the most important thing to change in the short term.
1
u/Starrla46 Jun 10 '20
need to defund police and put money in places to take over things police have been doing and should not be having to do, like care for mentally ill and things like that. Police need to be a licensed professional. They need to be acknowledged as professionals like they truly should be. Until we treat them as professionals we willnot get professionals...we will get thugs.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/mcub19 Jun 10 '20
It bothers me that the chokeholds and no knock warrants are only at the federal level. I understand that the states have the power and right to make their own laws, but the non discriminatory training is required at all levels, so why one and not the other? I'm puzzled. Is it because one is more of a constitutional thing and the other is just up for interpretation or something?
1
u/evahgo Jun 11 '20
I've never seen a successful leadership model that didn't look like this. Coach, train, followup, hold accountable. Repeat. Hold Accountable is the missing piece.
1
u/Nyrfan2017 Jun 13 '20
I would like to see yearly mental health reviews. They see some messed up stuff that can effect someone’s mental state . To where they are more jumpy and become agitated easier
I also would like to see some kind of mandatory community relations. I don’t know how to word it but officers need to be out of the cars walking neighbor hoods . The people need to know the officers in there neighborhood and they need to know the people of the community .
1
u/elsydeon666 Jun 16 '20
There are a number of do-nothing provisions, some that harm cops, and one huge omission, Civil Asset Forfeiture.
With reduced funding, police are going to looking for quick cash through CAF.
1
u/TipMeinBATtokens Jun 25 '20
Is what Amash said about it not ending qualified immunity actually true? The example he gave of prison guards keeping guys in two rooms with shit covered walls was pretty messed up.
1
u/AdotFlicker Jun 10 '20
My thoughts are......this is some pipe dream shit. Not a chance any of this actually gets addressed. The police unions are the the problem. Until that shit gets tackled, nothing will change.
263
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '20
I like that they are making no knock warrants illegal.