So this is a project I’ve been working on for a little while now, and I thought I’d bring it here for you guys to check it out. This community is filled with many intelligent and patriotic citizens that I’d love to hear their input: is this idea worth pushing, could it be improved, is it viable, etc. I know it’s kinda long but I truly believe this could help our country and it would do it in a manner that I think is productive and fair for all parties involved so please give it a read if you have the time. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lPDuM7wyBs8vKqC88KeZB5asNIWiSgwku8yzQpCVTfc/edit#slide=id.p
Thank you for this! Body cams are a completely feasible option that can be implemented now ^.^
Thanks. Were you able to see the rest of the slides? I don’t know if I shared it correctly.
Great presentation. Two things jumped out at me. Unions are a business and businesses do not generally like to cooperate in an effort to compliment each other. If a union seems weakened to its dues paying members, members withdraw if in a state where legal.
The second suggestion that other social agencies attend to some duties now directed to police officers. Police officers are the ones readily available. There are police on patrol at all times. In most cases the help needed is someone already in the area in a car. Response time makes a difference. I have had a uniformed officer come to my home to announce the death of a family member. My personal opinion is that a uniformed officer helped me accept the news. Are there some things that could be done by another social agency, probably. I just think that has to be carefully crafted.
Cameras, yes on all police bodies. Still, the camera cannot capture the fear that law enforcement officers operate under.
Bad cops need to be weeded out, absolutely. Pay the good cops more and expect more. Educate more, pay more.
The plan is a working effort and a great start. Thanks
Great feedback, I appreciate you giving it a look. I %100 agree about the cameras. They won’t solve everything but they can deter things like evidence planting and such.
As far as the unions go, the weakening of the police union is on purpose. Currently a lot of people are complaining they are too powerful and are one of the main reasons it’s so hard to make any sort of reform with police accountability and such. That said, police unions will still have the same amount of power when it comes to actual police precincts; they just will have to negotiate everything when it comes to the BPRS, with the People’s Union to counter-balance them. For the people’s union they don’t even necessarily have to run like a regular union; I had more of a town hall committee type thing in mind that allows concerned citizens to voice their concerns properly and effectively. (I figured that would be better than any protest or riot for pretty much everybody).
For the social agencies I don’t know to enough to say what would work or not which is why I leave that up to the BPRS to figure out what’s effective for everybody. I totally get in emergencies we want emergency responders, I just know we have a bit of a police shortage which is why we accept a lower quality. So for example some places have police act as animal control when that job can obviously be handled by a different branch in most cases.
But thanks again for feedback. I’m very much an outsider to how these things work so having different perspectives is useful. I will look a bit more into how unions work and see if I can clean it up a bit.
I can appreciate the desire to find a way out of the quagmire we are in, but this plan seems to be poorly thought out and will only make things worse.
Putting local police departments under the command of yet another federal agency would effectively nationalize our police forces. Imagine being a small town cop trying to operate under rules and regulations designed for the LAPD. An agency run by bureaucrats with little accountability would only engender further resentment among both police officers and the citizens they are charged with protecting. There are other issues with this plan, and if this plan were put into effect by a federal agency as is, neither the police nor the citizens would have any realistic means to effect changes in it. Lobbying groups would be forced to focus on their own self promotion and rather than representing either the citizens or the police.
A few other issues: Requiring body cams to be on at all times would have drastic consequences for police officer’s ability to interact with victims or witnesses (we already know about these problems, which is why current regulations around body cams exist). Secret and anonymous investigations of police officers are a gross violation of their 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights (there are already numerous cases were the federal takeover of such investigations – i.e. campus sexual assault – has led to these wide ranging infringements). Automatically holding officers guilty of a crime if the citizen killed is unarmed is a rigid definition that allows for no nuance; if I’m punching an officer into unconsciousness, is his partner not allowed to shoot me because I’m unarmed (this is the same sort of problem brought on by things like mandatory minimums for drug crimes)?
My advice would be to: Further investigate specific instances of police shootings without the assumption that every time a citizen (even an unarmed citizen) is shot it is because the police made a mistake (sometimes people leave police no choice). Research the existing laws and regulations around police and attempt to understand why they were put in place (some will inevitably be because of corruption and cronyism, but other – I would say most – would be because of a real issue that is already understood by people dealing with it). Find smaller more contained improvements that can be made to policing at a local level (or state level in the case of state agencies). Policing is very complicated and differs greatly between different geographic locations; trying to formulate a monolithic plan that fixes local policing at a national level without doing more harm than good may very well be impossible.
Hey Josh, thanks for the honest feedback. I may not have made it very clear in the presentation so if so, my bad. Each BPRS will only be in charge of the specific police jurisdictions in there surrounding area so this wouldn’t be a federal thing. The only thing shared nationally is the data. This helps make sure a cop that gets fired in 1 state can’t just move to another to get rehired (which is where a lot of the bad cops come from). What works in a small town probably won’t work in a high-crime city, such as LA, so polices would only be made and enforced locally. That said effective/ineffective policies are still put into the national database in case another BPRS thinks it might be effective in there area. No need for each Bureau to reinvent the wheel if they don’t have to.
You made a good point about the body-cams being off for more sensitive situations so that is something I should probably address. Though I should probably point out that all body-cam footage would be kept locked and only seen and released (if deemed appropriate) by a select few).
The example you gave would not fall under the innocent life clause. That clause only takes into effect when the subject is both unarmed and non-violent. This is for when police have probable cause to shoot, such as the subject reaching behind there back, glove box etc. but turns out the victim wasn’t reaching for a weapon. I realize police have to deal with a lot of dangerous people, weapon or not so in the vast majority of cases this clause would not apply. But it would stop from letting those few cases (like Dylan Shaver) from getting swept under the rug and nothing happening to the cop who shot a kid pulling up his pants. Though if you feel my current description doesn’t relay that well I will try to update it to be more clear.
Thanks again for the feedback. I hope I wasn’t coming across as argumentative, just wanted to make sure you knew what I was trying to accomplish and why. You have certainly given me a lot to think about.