Here Are 4 Policing Reforms Cities and States Are Considering Right Now

There’s a lot of work to be done to prevent future George Floyds. Here are some baby steps.

Policing critics, Black Lives Matters activists, and a smattering of elected officials around the country want to pass significant policing reforms following George Floyd's death at the knee of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Right now, the biggest proposals are getting the most attention.

Rep. Justin Amash (L-Mich.) is in the middle of crafting a bill that would eliminate qualified immunity, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't do it first. Qualified immunity is the legal doctrine that protects police officers and prosecutors from being sued for violating people's rights.

Other big ideas include limiting the power and influence of police unions, who use collective bargaining not just to negotiate wages and benefits but also to control the disciplinary and appeal processes that make it next to impossible to fire bad cops. Reform advocates also want to build a national registry of police officers fired for misconduct and to repeal state laws that shield police discipline records from public view in order to keep bad cops from moving to new jurisdictions.

While many of these policies seem obvious, they will require an incredible amount of political will to implement. In the meantime, here are four more incremental reforms being considered in communities around the U.S.

1. In San Diego: No more "carotid restraints." Police in San Diego are permitted to use a type of neck hold that cuts off blood to the brain and quickly renders people unconscious. Officers used these holds 70 times in 2019, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Yesterday, San Diego Police Chief David Nisleit ordered a stop to their use, given the potential for harm. Nisleit told the Union-Tribune that he had been considering this change since 2018. The Union-Tribune reports that many cities prohibit chokeholds because they are dangerous and are disproportionately used against minorities. After Floyd's death, a review of Minneapolis police tactics found that when officers used neck restraints to render somebody unconscious, half of the people they used them against were injured.

San Diego City Council members spoke positively about the change, but the San Diego County Sheriff's Department is refusing to follow suit. Deputies will still be permitted to use the carotid restraints.

2. In New York City: Standardize police discipline and ban police chokeholds. In New York City, where police unions are powerful and Mayor Bill de Blasio is so weak that it took five years just to fire the NYPD officer who killed Eric Garner, it will likely take the city council to actually force changes.

After Garner's death from a chokehold in 2014, a New York City council member introduced a measure that would criminalize the use of choke holds by police. De Blasio responded by threatening a veto. Now de Blasio says he'd approve the measure so long as it provides an exception if the officer is in a "life or death situation."

In addition, another council member is proposing a "disciplinary matrix" to create a standard of discipline when officers engage in misconduct. Council Member Donavan Richards told NY1, "There is no written instruction on what a disciplinary action should be if an officer commits an infraction. This will set an example."

New York's lack of public transparency about police discipline contributes to the problem. New York state law shields police discipline records from public view. This can also lead to manipulation within the discipline system itself. When BuzzFeed journalists got their hands on secret New York Police Department disciplinary files, they found both cases where officers received slaps on the wrists for serious misconduct and cases where officers were harshly punished for minor infractions. One internal affairs investigator told BuzzFeed, "If 10 cops did the same exact thing that was bad, the outcome is different every time."

3. In Colorado: Require police to intervene when fellow officers act out. Police unions are often quick to run to the defense of officers when they're accused of misconduct. But when Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin was caught on video kneeling on Floyd's neck for more than eight minutes, many unions made it clear they found Chauvin's conduct indefensible.

In Colorado, three law enforcement groups—the County Sheriffs of Colorado, the Colorado Fraternal Order of Police, and the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police—put out a joint statement Tuesday calling for state lawmakers to require that other officers intervene when they see something like what happened to Floyd.

The groups note that it's already a duty for officers to intervene when he or she witnesses a fellow officer engaged in unreasonable force. They're asking for state lawmakers to make it a statutory requirement, leaving officers who don't intervene (like the three cops who stood by while Chauvin slowly suffocated Floyd) possibly facing criminal charges.

Democratic lawmakers in Colorado are working on a sweeping police reform bill intended to hit some of those big picture ideas to fight police misconduct: getting rid of qualified immunity, requiring body cameras for all officers, changes in use of force rules against suspects attempting to escape police, and a rule forbidding cops fired for excessive force from getting work in other cities' police departments in Colorado. Maybe adding a component the unions actually support might help deal with the inevitable resistance.

4. In New Jersey: Launch a statewide use-of-force database. One of the challenges when fighting for reform is the general lack of data about how frequently police use force, under what circumstances, and what the justifications were. Heck, simply tracking who police officers kill in the line of duty is not easy, and efforts by the FBI to track that information nationally have been woefully inadequate.

In New Jersey, data journalists at NJ Advance Media put together their own database of use-of-force incidents within the state covering five years and collating more than 70,000 documents. There was no other statewide collection of use-of-force data and little analysis. After the NJ Advance Media "Force Report" database was released in 2018, state officials started a pilot project to launch an official government database to track the use of force in selected police departments. On Tuesday, New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal said that starting on July 1, all police departments in the state will be able to participate.

None of these smaller actions should be seen as substitutes for more sweeping reforms. But those are going to be big, long political battles against entrenched police unions with deep pockets. If reformers can convince legislators to implement incremental improvements right now, they should.

Comments

[Longtobefree]

"In Colorado, three law enforcement groups—the County Sheriffs of Colorado, the Colorado Fraternal Order of Police, and the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police—put out a joint statement Tuesday calling for state lawmakers to require that other officers intervene when they see something like what happened to Floyd."

Well, it is easy to see why these groups feel powerless to enact these reforms on their own, they just run the damn cop business!!

[kavina]

I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . .HBo I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

Heres what I do……………… See More here

[Leslie the Bard]

Here's a simple suggestion: supply the cops with lots of stun-weapons, and train them with the same until reaching for a stunner becomes the conditioned reflex/default setting. Give each cop two stun-batons, three hand-stunners, and at least four Tasers apiece, train him/her to a fare-thee-well, and you'll see a lot fewer "choke" injuries.

[Wearenotperfect]

"The groups note that it's already a duty for officers to intervene when he or she witnesses a fellow officer engaged in unreasonable force."
So it's a systemic and lack of moral consciousness problem? Got it!
One other reform that needs to happen is to reform the Accomplice Liability laws that get misused and all to often punish someone for the actions of another.

[Janettaw]

I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . OPt I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

Heres what I do….....… Click Here

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Other big ideas include limiting the power and influence of police unions, who use collective bargaining not just to negotiate wages and benefits but also to control the disciplinary and appeal processes that make it next to impossible to fire bad cops.

Is Black Lives Matter on board with this, because one of the central political issues BLM put forward when they first popped up was "strengthening public sector unions".

[Idle Hands]

Of course not none of these groups exist to solve problems but to perpetuate the problem and profit off of it. They aren't honest brokers none of them, this is an election year issue.

[suzanjass]

Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and ecarning from this job are just awesome.VFc Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks.......... Online Jobs Provid

[BA Byron]

Because what could go wrong when people know they can never be fired?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

In San Diego: No more "carotid restraints." Police in San Diego are permitted to use a type of neck hold that cuts off blood to the brain and quickly renders people unconscious.

*sigh*

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

In New York City: Standardize police discipline and ban police chokeholds. In New York City, where police unions are powerful and Mayor Bill de Blasio is so weak that it took five years just to fire the NYPD officer who killed Eric Garner, it will likely take the city council to actually force changes.

*sigh*

It took five years to fire a cop... HEY LOOK! A DODGY CHOKEHOLD!

[Logistika]

Back in my day, around the turn of the century, we called that a blood choke in the Marine Corps. MCMAP training taught us that it was a much more effective way to kill someone as opposed to closing off their windpipe.

MCMAP = Marine Karate

[SQRLSY One]

In the days of massive computer power and the internet...

MAY I SUGGEST a simple black-list or shit-list of failed LEOs, nationwide? If you as a community vote to BYPASS the shitlist, and hire off of the shitlist, please feel free to do so! The rest of us should be entitled to use the shitlist when hiring! Being a LEO should be a privilege, not a right!!!

[SQRLSY One]

Oh, OK, it was in the list above...

"Reform advocates also want to build a national registry of police officers fired for misconduct and to repeal state laws that shield police discipline records from public view in order to keep bad cops from moving to new jurisdictions.

Yeah man let's do that!!!

[Geraje Guzba]

// Qualified immunity is the legal doctrine that protects police officers and prosecutors from being sued for violating people's rights.//

This statement is so wrong, it is laughable.

1. Qualified immunity does not prevent a police officer or prosecutor from getting sued for violating people's rights. It is a legal doctrine that **may** apply in certain select circumstances to shield an officer from liability.

2. Qualified immunity is highly dependent upon the facts of a particular case. It is not an amorphous catch-all that just gets applied on a whim. The burden is on the police to show it applies and it is not easy. I've litigated both sides of the issue and it is not a cake walk at all. It is actually a reasonable doctrine since the scope of conduct that falls within the range of "unconstitutional" conduct is not definitively set forth in a magic list somewhere. Some cases are clear, others are not.

3. The notion that run around town carefully violating people's rights, with Westlaw access and a ready list of court rulings, is absurd.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Your statement is so laughable, it is wrong.

TFA simplified the concept because there isn't room for a thesis. Your explanation adds nothing material. That's how life works. Get over it.

[Geraje Guzba]

How is my statement wrong? Explain yourself, or shut the fuck up.

[MollyGodiva]

It is wrong because the burden is on the plaintiff to show that there is decided case that is very similar to what the cop is accused of doing. The fact that it is so fact specific is the problem, if there is no case close enough then the cop gets QA. The issue is that the two cases have to be so similar that it is easy for courts to find differences and give QA. And just getting precedent set from the first case is tough. Here are the steps:

1. A cop abuses someone who has enough money to sue or a group pays a lawyer for them.
2. Cop makes motion for QA.
3. Whoever loses that motion appeals and the appeals court looks at the case and decides that QA is warranted. The person who was abused has lost, and will not collect any damages or legal fees, even if they win at step 4.
4. At the discretion of the appeals court, they decide that the action was a civil rights violation. If the court decides not to decide, then the next person with the same facts needs to start at step 1.

Now, a future person who is abused can start at step 1 and possibly win. This process is highly stacked against those abused.

A solution is to force appeals courts to decide for every case if it was a civil rights violation, and to lower the level of specifics needed for liability. Since all these rules are SCOTUS made and not constitutional in nature, Congress can make the changes.

[MollyGodiva]

Yes, I know I accidental wrote QA instead of QI.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

But it was a fun read, thinking of every QA department I have ever worked with. Thanks for both the good rebuttal and the unintentional humor.

[Geraje Guzba]

Conceptually, you are missing the purpose of the qualified immunity defense. How are you missing it? This is how:

First, you are presuming the independent existence of a subset of prohibited conduct that is inherently unconstitutional, prior to ever having been held unconstitutional. Such a category of conduct does not exist. Further, you are advocating for liability to be imposed against state officials in connection with acts and/or omissions they cannot have known to have been unconstitutional, because the constitutionality of such conduct was never ruled upon.

When applied to non-governmental conduct, qualified immunity is very similar to the doctrine of vagueness -- for example, when a criminal statute fails to proscribe with detail and specificity the precise conduct that is prohibited. By requiring fair notice of what is punishable and what is not, the vagueness doctrine works to prevent arbitrary enforcement of the laws.

In short, it is not fair to hold any person or state actor liable for conduct that they cannot reasonably ascertain was prohibited in the first place.

Second, your contention that "the burden is on the plaintiff to show that there is decided case that is very similar to what the cop is accused of doing … if there is no case close enough then the cop gets QA" completely misstates the doctrine of qualified immunity. This is not how it works.

The standards is as follows:

"It should not be surprising, therefore, that our cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been 'clearly established' in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. ***This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful***, but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent." Anderson v. Creighton (1987).

You are also wrong as to the burden of proof:

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pled and proved by the defendant.” Shechter v. Comptroller of the City of N.Y., 79 F.3d 265, 270 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing Blissett v. Coughlin, 66 F.3d 531, 538 (2d Cir. 1995)). The mere fact that the Individual Defendants are “government officials” is not enough to establish qualified immunity. Shechter, 79 F.3d at 270. The Individual Defendants “must further demonstrate the specific acts at issue were performed within the scope of their official duties.” Id. (emphasis omitted).

Moreover, while “[t]he matter of whether a right was clearly established at the pertinent time is a question of law[,] ... the matter of whether a defendant official’s conduct was objectively reasonable, i.e., whether a reasonable official would reasonably believe his conduct did not violate a clearly established right, is a mixed question of law and fact.” Higazy v. Templeton, 505 F.3d 161, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93, 108-09 (2d Cir. 2004)). Accordingly, although “ ‘[i]mmunity ordinarily should be decided by the court,’ that is true only in those cases where the facts concerning the availability of the defense are undisputed; otherwise, jury consideration is normally required.” Higazy, 505 F.3d at 170 (quoting Oliveira v. Mayer, 23 F.3d 642, 649 (2d Cir. 1994)) (additional citation omitted).

See Wisdom v. County of Nassau (2020)

I sincerely hope you look into the issue deeper, because your understanding of the applicable standards is lacking.

//A solution is to force appeals courts to decide for every case if it was a civil rights violation, and to lower the level of specifics needed for liability. Since all these rules are SCOTUS made and not constitutional in nature, Congress can make the changes.//

Congress cannot dictate how courts determine constitutionality because determining constitutionality is solely within the purview of the courts.

Nice suggestion, but it's completely wrong.

[Wearenotperfect]

Oooh to live in Guzba's world of rainbows and butterflies! We should all come visit sometime.

[Livemike]

"1. Qualified immunity does not prevent a police officer or prosecutor from getting sued for violating people’s rights. It is a legal doctrine that **may** apply in certain select circumstances to shield an officer from liability."
So it does prevent a police officer or prosecutor from getting sued for violatoing people's rights, just not all the time. Right so you're walking back claims in the first sentence in the second sentence.

" It is actually a reasonable doctrine since the scope of conduct that falls within the range of “unconstitutional” conduct is not definitively set forth in a magic list somewhere. Some cases are clear, others are not."
No it's not reasonable that someone can violate someone's rights and not be sued because they were ignorant of those rights. It's your job to make sure what you do doesn't violate rights, that's the standard that applies to everyone except the people given power by the government. It should just be the standard for everyone.

"3. The notion that run around town carefully violating people’s rights, with Westlaw access and a ready list of court rulings, is absurd."
Except that's literally what it does. A plantiff can literally prove their rights were violated and the cops can simply walk away because they didn't prove that the courts had already said this was a violation. Nobody else gets that protection. If I violate your rights I can't say that I didn't know the courts would rule against me.

[Geraje Guzba]

1. Not walking anything back. Guess what has to happen before anyone can determine the applicability of qualified immunity? That's right - a lawsuit. Meaning …. somebody has to get sued.

2. You are wrong for the same reason Molly is. You are presuming that there is a list of prohibited conduct, somewhere out there, that sets forth all of the things that are unconstitutional and a violation of people's rights. Such a list doesn't exist. Cart before the horse.

3. //A plantiff can literally prove their rights were violated and the cops can simply walk away because they didn’t prove that the courts had already said this was a violation.//

Incorrect.

If a plaintiff establishes their rights were violated, an officer, under the doctrine of qualified immunity, can only escape liability if their conduct was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

Qualified immunity is available to officials so long as their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). To determine whether defendants enjoy qualified immunity, “we consider the specificity with which a right is defined, the existence of Supreme Court or Court of Appeals case law on the subject, and the understanding of a reasonable officer in light of preexisting law.” Terebesi v. Torreso, 764 F.3d 217, 231 (2d Cir. 2014). ****The plaintiffs are not required to cite a case “directly on point.”***** Id. at 230 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (finding that whether the very action in question has not previously been held unlawful is not determinative); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002) ( “[O]fficials can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances.”). However, “in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Id. at 739, 122 S.Ct. 2508 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Chamberlain Estate of Chamberlain v. City of White Plains (2020)

[Idle Hands]

If you think this about any real reforms or anything is going to come of this bullshit I have a bridge to sell you. This is about making race an issue again since they can't extend the covid bullshit for much longer. That's it. Every single one of these cities could do shit tmw to gut public sector unions and how they deal with police interactions. They. Don't. Actually. Care.

[Muzzled Woodchipper]

This is exactly right.

Covid fever is over. The media and government lost control of the messaging, and can’t really stop the people from resuming normal life now that the cat is out of the bag. So they’re moving in to their trusty standby: racism.

[Jerryskids]

They aren't interested in preventing future George Floyds, they're only interested in preventing future riots over the future George Floyds. They'll only do the bare minimum necessary to keep the sheep calm and obedient. And if you know anything about sheepherding, it's much the same as wife-beating - talking in a calm soothing voice until they settle down and then you can go right back to business as usual without actually changing anything about the victim/victimizer relationship.

[Idle Hands]

I don't think this take is nearly cynical enough Jerry, I'd argue they want future riots and george floyds. Why else do they do nothing to actually change the system? It benefits everyone in charge.

[Idle Hands]

riots prove you need them. George Floyds prove you need to elect the right ones.

[Geraje Guzba]

You cannot avoid future George Floyd's because any time a cop does anything to a black suspect that results in death or injury, right or wrong, there are riots.

You cannot satiate people whose sole objectives are cowing whitey into reparations and ensuring that the law creates an allowance for blacks to commit crimes with impunity because, after all, "we built this country, honkey."

[You're Kidding]

@Geraje Guzba

Thank you! It may not be PC to say it but, has anyone actually seen evidence that this police inflicted murder was in fact, race based other than the fact that the officers were white and the victim was not?

The stupid media with their click bait headlines started this hold race meme and should be made to pay......

[Idle Hands]

How many versions and generations of race hustlers do we have to go through before we realize the whole fucking thing is a grift? They only endorse the democrats, you could legit have a republican come out and endorse every single one of these policies in some have *coughPaul*coughLibertarians*cough and we get absolutely no movement, because they don't actually care about fixing the problem. They care about profiting off the problem and receiving votes off the problem.

[Geraje Guzba]

As long as we keep breeding entitled retards that grow up believing all of their problems in life are caused by someone else, we can probably do this for another thousand years.

A list of demands can be found below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=xR4k2dbNaHQ&feature=emb_logo&fbclid=IwAR2On0-dU6E2RBoj4rJiVWvNcmLTNtYVaJDV_6sVPJWR58GzfPU5nR_kCPg

Give us all your shit. Kill the cops. White people owe us.

[jmlandry]

And #5

End the stupid fucking war on drugs. 50% of what police do is bust consenting individuals for no crime at all.

If there never was a war on drugs, police and minority interactions would be significantly less. Less interaction, less busted skulls.

of course you will get the usual bulshit, right now is not the time to decriminalize during the covid virus and civil unrest. Fucking suck ass Republicans!

[Idle Hands]

they both suck. Frankly the democrats have been running Minnieappolis for 40 years and have done nothing. There is nothing stopping them from decriminalizing or looking the other way on drug crimes and tasking their policies towards violent crimes responses only.

[Geraje Guzba]

Give it time. Democrats will crave and more or less stop enforcing the law they way they stopped enforcing the law in Baltimore and Detroit.

And, when all of the White, Hispanic, and Asian residents leave, as a result of being looted and terrorized at will, they'll end up with a shell of a city …. and they'll blame everyone else.

[Colossal Douchebag]

they both suck.

Amen

[jmlandry]

I'm in Mpls.

Governor walz has shown an interest in make rec weed legal. The Republicans will not move on it.

yes they both do suck. With the Democrats I get no representation, high taxes, high crime and lots of pork.

Minnesotans get neither liberty nor do they get legal weed.

It took an act of God to get beer sales on Sundays! up until Jesse Ventura we could not legally even have sparklers on the 4th of July.

Moving to Florida eventually...

[Dillinger]

Rod Carew and Tommy Kramer are gone anyway...

[Paulpemb]

"Frankly the democrats have been running Minnieappolis for 40 years..."

More like 60. Minneapolis last Republican mayor was Richard Erdall.

He served one day in office, December 31, 1973.

The last Republican before him left office in 1961.

[Colossal Douchebag]

Get back to me when any substantial reform passes any legislature in any state in the U.S. Not before a major U.S. city burns to the ground.

[Ezra MacVie]

The drug war is responsible for 9 tenths of the killings. The victims are drug dealers who have bought protection from the police, and (perhaps) paid out less than their protectors felt they should have.
The cops can't blow the whistle on these people - they'd testify they'd been paying protection money.
So kill them. That way, they can't testify. Their customers can't say they were drug dealers since that would amount to confessing to the crime of having bought their wares.
Get the picture? It's perfect. And lucrative. And murder's the only way to ensure prompt payment in full - or maybe even then some.

[Livemike]

Interesting theory, it certainly fits with the Floyd/Chauvin connection where they worked together. It would be interesting if they found out that Chauvin had some sort of deal that went bad. It would certainly put a dent in the "it's all racism" narrative.

[Dillinger]

what the fuck needs to be reformed so cops don't kneel people to death? just don't fucking do it, and goto prison if you do.

[Geraje Guzba]

Reparations. That is the answer for everything.

[Dillinger]

thought that's what this week's The Siege has been about.

[Overt]

And of course, after reparations, it will be forced redistribution of property. We have seen this play out in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

[Ron]

its something but small potatoes what is needed is for both governors and the president of the U.S. need to speak out clearly about movement on several fronts that actually address the police violence issue as I commented on earlier. No BS SJW conversations, real legal action. then people would actually maybe start to settle down

[kcuch]

both governors and the president of the U.S.

There is no Federal component here... they passed the 13th and 14th to say all they needed to say. The Feds mandated demographically proportionate state (and federal) employment practices and actively pursues jurisdictions who blatantly reject those proscriptions.

This is all Mayors and Local Hiring. The friends, families, and neighbors of those who are being abused. It is all on them to stop it if they want.

Less laws + less police = happier citizens

[Qsl]

My own take is that there is an increasingly narrow window to get major reforms in the spotlight with a chance of passing. The proposed concerns are tangential mostly, and while helpful in very specific circumstances, are of limited value.

The push in Louisville to end no-knock search warrants is huge, and will hopefully get passed. Defanging police unions could also happen as no police union is carrying the water of Chauvin, and it can be shown how their actions directly contributed to him remaining on the force.

It is damnable that the protestors haven't manged even a couple of concerns to present to the press. As Killer Mike was in the media eye recently, he could articulate some concrete proposals, or even draw attention to the proposals before congress now, with the hope of shaming reluctant members into tepid support.

But as is, the longer the process and protests are drawn out, the less change you are actually likely to see.

[afk05]

I am ambivalent about the police. At the core, police enforce the government’s laws. For example, they enforce laws against assault and murder. This is a good thing. But they also enforce laws against selling “loose” cigarettes and unlicensed burritos.

Police catch rapists and burglars. But they also shut down lemonade stands and seize the cash deposits of immigrant business owners.

Police run toward crazed gunmen when others are running away. Police have also used their batons against labor organizers, suffragettes and civil rights protesters.

Police, as instruments of state power, have all the contradictions of state power. At their best they are heroes. At their worst they are jackbooted thugs. In between they daily enforce the dull yet pervasive oppression of the bureaucratic state.

The libertarian view is not so much opposed to police per se, as it is opposed to the paternalistic Big Brother state that has lost track of the core mission of government — protecting natural rights — and insinuated itself into all parts of our lives. Restore the state to its proper role and police would at the same time be restored to their proper role.

[JFree]

I think your take is reasonable but I don't think it's 'libertarian' and it certainly doesn't exist in either major party or in the L's. 'Restore the state to its proper role' is not something we can do by dinner and then spend the next 50 years ignoring because its now a perfectly constructed self-maintaining perpetual motion machine and just take the kids to Disneyland. We USED TO have a 'good government' impulse in this country. The Constitution was created on the notion. From deToqueville to Nock at least, it was part of our civic DNA. Elect people who are both competent and have that 'vision thang' - and then keep holding them accountable thru all the structures (ticket splitting, checks-and-balances, etc) that are on the side of good governance.

But somewhere along the way, we lost that and it is now gone for good in every generation of Americans I see. The D's and R's were never for that. They were always about identity and power - and they have now managed to manipulate all voters into buying that identity/power vision as the primary goal. Every single voter who votes D or R now eats that shit 24/7 and ONLY eats that shit.

And the anarcho instinct in the L's has never been about good government since the biggest enemy of anarcho is a competent nightwatchman state. Always has been.

[Sevo]

Did your mommy say it was safe for your to come out and virtue-signal?
BOO!

[kcuch]

But somewhere along the way, we lost that

right around the 19th Amendment

[EWM]

All the police have to do is abide by the contract that they and the citizenry put their signatures on. Oh wait..

[Ricport]

But one of the top reforms - severely restricting or outright abolishing police unions - isn't being mentioned by any big-city mayor, state legislature or governor. Why? Because most of the big cities are run by Dems who are nothing but lickspittles of the unions.

I highly suspect, based on past ham-handed government fiascos, that the issue of Qualified Immunity needs to have a scalpel taken to it, but since it's low-hanging fruit, pols will take an ax to it, pat themselves on the back for being "woke," and end up only creating new sets of problems.

Same goes for requiring officers to intervene. It sounds great on paper & in theory, but it's undoubtedly more complex than most would like to believe.

More sunshine needs to be spread on cops' records, so that's long overdue. So is setting up a national database of bad cops.

But, how about also mandating rigorous psychological testing for all recruits, as well as regular testing for all officers, in order to help weed out the bad apples?

[ourconstitution.info]

This has been horrid. Thank you to the protesters for speaking up for all of us. I hate to say, but there is a lot of bad out there. In my case being covered-up, and everyone needs to be aware and stop this h_ll.

Please see my site ourconstitution.info for horrid concerns as a fired whistleblower at a university/med school, and perhaps still 2nd largest CIA hub. My reporting is beyond scary and these powerful perpetrators must be held accountable. The cover-up extends to congress - Rubio receives money from a wealthy benefactor of this university and I never heard from him. Scott, Gimenez, DeSantis are all facilitators. Feinstein didn't want to speak about it.

I term it "high-level" lethality - killing people in medical facilities (chemical injection causes a "heart attack") and outside in restaurants, for example, a biologic in food after which the victim never wakes up again. Healthy people have a cause of death "unknown". They are falsifying tumor markers and seeding cancer. There are a number of reasons for this including hate, need for cadavers, more income to treat advanced disease, patent costing too much, etc. Unfortunately, this h_ll is nothing new - just kept under wraps.
abovetopsecret.com/forum/th...
HISTORY OF SECRET EXPERIMENTATION ON UNITED STATES CITIZENS

People should demand this is investigated and perpetrators held accountable. Otherwise, everyone is vulnerable and even hospitals and meals aren't necessarily safe. I have some suggestions for solutions also at my site. Heed Eisenhower's and Truman's warnings now. Protect patients, students, and all of us.

[Titus PUllo]

Wow...how about 100 billion for sensitivity training run by some NGO or former Democratic big city politicians daughter?

The real reforms are:
1. end the war on drugs immediately. Deaths in cities by murder will go way down pretty quick.
2. end militarization of police (do you hear me DC?)
3. end police unions..like teacher unions they are a major problem for the taxpayers with their pensions and protection of bad apples

[Jerry B.]

"end militarization of police"

Maybe ask Joe Biden to walk back on the 1033 program, that gives surplus military equipment to police forces. He supported and voted for it in 1997.

[A Thinking Mind]

Also, let's stop Civil Asset Forfeiture.

[con_fuse9]

Hold Police Accountable!
Hold Prosecutors Accountable!!!!!
There is an old saying, a reasonable prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.
So why when they bring the police to a grand jury they cannot get an indictment? Because the prosecutor isn't really trying. They are just using the cover of the grand jury.... "Its not my fault, the grand jury refused to indict".
Fire that prosecutor and disbar them.

There are so many layers that protect the police, the bad police officers have no fear of prosecution. You pretty much have to murder someone on video to get in any trouble.

[Jerry B.]

Nice of the four Democrat-run locales here to admit they have a problem. Now to see if they follow through, or if the police union's campaign contributions are worth more than the lives of their citizens of color.

[Lathem]

Very efficiently written information. It will be beneficial to anybody who utilizes it, including me. Keep up the good work. For sure i will check out more posts. This site seems to get a good amount of visitors.

[Sevo]

"...Nisleit told the Union-Tribune that he had been considering this change since 2018..."

When seconds count....

[KenMitchell]

1. Abolish or strictly limit the power of police unions. The Coward of Broward County got his job back, with back pay. What does it take for a bad cop to STAY FIRED?!?!?

2. Abolish "qualified immunity". Cops who break the law generally DO NOT DESERVE special consideration; they're cops, they're supposed to KNOW the law. Anybody deserves a second chance - but not a 3rd, 4th, 5th.....

We expect police to be better than the average citizen. Fire those who aren't able to meet this standard.

[Cthulunotmyfriend]

The problem with this plan, is it leaves out what we can do for the cops that will also help fix this.
1) Body Cams: the majority of the police, who are reasonable, will be protected by this and will realize that they would rather run around with their camera on then not have one. Seriously. In this atmosphere of toxicity, if I was a cop, I would want one.
2) Reasonable Orders: Whomever ordered those cops in Syracuse out in riot gear helped cause the situation that led to the old man getting knocked down. Whomever ordered those cops in Long Beach that they could fire rubber bullets into the crowd is responsible for my niece getting shot. She’s fine, but I don’t blame the cops. I blame the morons that are giving them their orders.

The Black Lives Matter brought this up years ago. Support the safety of all people. Rebuild trust. But remember, we hire the police, Give them orders. DAs think no-knock warrants are great, and seizing peoples property is even better. And yes, they turn a blind eye to the excesses of the few, because they have other priorities. All this crap needs to change.

[Anna27]

There was no other statewide collection of use-of-force data and little analysis. electrician palmdale ca