Police

Want Better Policing? Make It Easier To Fire Bad Cops.

Realtors, contractors, and insurance agents who engage in bad behavior can be stripped of their licenses. Police officers, on the other hand, rarely get fired.

|

If you're a Realtor, contractor, or insurance agent who engages in serious misbehavior, the state can strip you of the license that allows you to practice your profession. Occupational licensing rules often are strict. They include "moral turpitude" clauses that deny licenses to those with convictions—even for crimes that have little to do with the specific work license.

These rules mostly apply to private-sector workers. But many government employees—especially police officers, who have the legal right to use deadly force—have no licensing system. Overly aggressive and corrupt officers might get fired, but there's nothing stopping them from getting another policing job thanks to the power of the state's public-employee unions.

One would expect progressive California to be on the cutting edge of police reform, but Democrats have long been in the pocket of cop unions. And Republicans are their usual selves. They're for limited and accountable government but with an asterisk: Such accountability doesn't apply to uniformed officials who have the most power over our lives.

As a result, we're one of only four states that doesn't have a police-decertification process. I've covered the police abuse issue long before police misconduct had become a national outrage, and I can attest to the way this bipartisan system operated. A police officer might be accused of awful behavior, ranging from on-the-job sex abuse to abusing a detainee.

The police investigate themselves and rarely find wrongdoing. Internal discipline is secret. District attorneys, who often are elected with the support of police unions, file charges only in the most egregious situations—and usually only after an incident has exploded in the media. The Peace Officers Bill of Rights and special local collective bargaining clauses give officers the kind of protections that most of us wish the Bill of Rights really offered.

When police officers are caught red-handed, their agencies routinely allow them to plead their felony to a misdemeanor, which allows them to continue working in law enforcement. Even in the rare instance when DAs prosecute officers, sympathetic juries usually clear them. Google the "Kelly Thomas" case in Fullerton for a desk-pounding example.

Since the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, California Democrats have postured about police reform. But only a handful of measures have become law. The police unions still have their clout, although they've changed their tune. Now they claim to support reforms, yet virtually every one of the proposed reforms is too flawed for them to support. Go figure.

Finally, the state Legislature is getting ready to do something about the decertification situation and, sure enough, the usual suspects are singing that tune. Senate Bill 2 still is alive in the Legislature. It's a remarkably sensible and substantive proposal. Mainly, the legislation "requires minimum training and moral character requirements for peace officers…while at the same time identifying certain disqualifying factors, including a felony conviction."

The bill also "permits a person whose exercise or enjoyment of rights were interfered with in violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act to institute a civil action in their own name and on their own behalf." Imagine that—requiring government officials to be accountable for their actions, and expecting them (or, most likely, the agency that employs them) to buy a liability policy to cover such situations just as private organizations must do.

The Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), which operates a legal-defense fund for police officers, calls this particular bill "dangerous legislation that would not only create an unfair and unreliable process for revoking an officer's license to practice law enforcement."

My Southern California News Group colleague, Susan Shelley, worries that taxpayers will be stuck with the bill after "cities, counties and law enforcement agencies quickly cave to political pressure and settle the lawsuits." Maybe she hasn't noticed, but taxpayers currently pay hundreds of millions of dollars a year in police-misconducted-related lawsuits.

The problem is not that citizens file lawsuits against officials who harm them—but that police continue to leave bad apples on the force, where they engage in behavior that invites lawsuits. Currently, cities pay out settlements but can't keep problem officers out of the profession.

The National Institute of Justice reported that "It's a truism among police chiefs that 10 percent of their officers cause 90 percent of their problems." Maybe it's time to do something about that 10 percent?

The Southern California News Group reported in 2019 that the tiny city of McFarland, "hired a cop investigated in an FBI child porn probe, and another caught up in an LAPD burglary ring…One officer was accused in a lawsuit of having sex with a teenage police explorer scout: another of threatening to jail women if they didn't have sex with him. At least three more had DUIs."

Enough excuses. It's time to create some sort of decertification process for police.

This column was first published by The Orange County Register.

NEXT: Review: False Positive

Police California Criminal Justice Law enforcement State Governments

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

95 responses to “Want Better Policing? Make It Easier To Fire Bad Cops.

  1. How about common sense police control, and require additional certification for cops to carry guns? Make that certification subject to reality, outside of any union contracts.

    1. So then dispatch has to keep track of which officer to send to each call and if a gunless cop gets sent to a domestic disturbance call that turns violent and the officer or the complainant or a kid gets killed – then what? Hang the dispatcher? Sue the department? Put up a nice memorial?
      Will armed officers get paid more than unarmed officers? They will sustain more risk and be subject to more demanding decisions. Who decides who gets armed and who doesn’t? Think there will be lawsuits bt those who are not allowed arms when they are not given the same opportunities for advancement as the armed officers?
      C’mon, man. Put at least a tiny bit of thought into your suggestions.
      Sheesh.

      1. You could come up with something for the brevity code. Say 10-250 or something that means office with a weapon needs to respond.

        Not saying it’s a good idea. But there is a way to do it where dispatch does not need to track of who specifically has a firearm.

        “”Will armed officers get paid more than unarmed officers?””

        Yes. Isn’t this true will some private security firms? Do some police department pay those on specialized duty extra?

        “”Who decides who gets armed and who doesn’t?””

        The people who pass the deadly force test and quality with the service weapon are allowed to carry until they do something stupid.

        Just sayin.

        1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its T earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. if the cop shoots the unarmed wife or husband city pays out millions mr copsucker

        1. I am making 70 to 60 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i’m Working four hour Dailly and make forty dollar Easily ..KJH This is enough for me to glad my circle of relatives..How ?? I’m making this so u can do it Easily
          HERE…… Work202

      3. “Will armed officers get paid more than unarmed officers?”

        Yes, just as people who get more certifications in almost any other field do.

        “Who decides who gets armed and who doesn’t?”

        Presumably the licensing board.

        “Think there will be lawsuits bt those who are not allowed arms when they are not given the same opportunities for advancement as the armed officers?”

        Who cares? “You failed to get certified or were disqualified from certification, which limited your career advancement options.”

        Let me ask you one, are there lawsuits from people who passed law school or engineering school and failed the professional certification exams for their lack of opportunity for advancement? If so, how do those turn out?

        1. Those who fail to pass the Bar exam or failed to fully qualify for certification as an Engineer are barred from being employed as lawyers or engineers. Those who fail to qualify with firearms are not hired to be police officers. The suggestion that agencies should hire police officers who are uncapable of qualifying either practically or psychologically is ridiculous. We should only hire people who are fully capable of carrying out all the duties of the position for which they are hired. Do you really want an lawyer who passed everything on the bar exam except the part about criminal law ? Seriously ?

    2. Make them carry liability insurance. It would defray the cost of lawsuits, and make bad cops rapidly unemployable.

      1. It would, mostly, allow municipalities to dodge responsibility for crappy training and failure to supervise. If there is no risk to the agency for teaching an officer to kneel on a subject’s neck in order to prevent self-harm, the agency will continue to train that way. If an officer follows his agency’s policy and procedure manual to the letter, even if the outcome is horrible, it is the agency that should suffer, not the officer.

  2. Well, yes and no.
    Yes, if the state required licenses for police, then the state could revoke licenses of bad cops. But I thought we were against licensure laws in general, as the licensure boards tend to be petty, needlessly bureaucratic, and often politicized. The decision to fire a bad cop would simply be transferred from cronies in the police union to cronies on the licensure board.

    A better idea is simply to end qualified immunity, and a liability insurance system will naturally arise. The only requirement then would be to require that cops have liability insurance as a condition of employment. Bad cops will have unaffordable premiums and it would not make economic sense for bad cops to continue to be employed as cops.

    1. Yes, insurance companies are never petty, needlessly bureaucratic, or politicized.

      1. I would take them over a police union or a state board of licensure. Wouldn’t you?

        1. I don’t know, let’s ask the state insurance commissioner who defines benefits, premiums, and actuarial practices for “private” insurance companies if we should pull Jack Webb’s policy.

          Let me ask you, should these same insurance companies be able to privately prosecute the Antifa and BLM rioters who cost them 3 billion dollars in claims throughout 2020, none of whom – not even a single one mind you – was ever charged with a crime?

          1. insurance companies did not pay shit for the riots they got fed money

          2. Many of the individuals who caused harm to people or property have been prosecuted. BLM and Antifa have nothing whatsoever to do with one another: the former is a loose organization of peaceful advocates, the latter is an even less organized group of violent anrarchists.

            1. WK? Is that you?

            2. The same peaceful advocates who burn loot and murder?

    2. That’s a great idea. Right up to the point where the city and/or union starts picking up the insurance tab for the bad cops. Why shouldn’t they? Greedy insurance corporations that only care about profit are unfairly penalizing our brave men and women in blue who just want to go home to their families after work.

      1. Then police departments would have to make a choice. Do we continue to pay for the exorbitant liability insurance premium for this “bad apple” cop who has gotten into lots of trouble? Or do we buy a new police cruiser? A lot of them are going to choose the latter. Plus, the public would have a more quantifiable measure of who is a “bad cop”, because once the state starts paying for these premiums, it becomes part of the public record. It is not a perfect solution, but IMO it would lead to more transparency and more accountability.

        1. Then police departments would have to make a choice. Do we continue to pay for the exorbitant liability insurance premium for this “bad apple” cop who has gotten into lots of trouble? Or do we buy a new police cruiser?

          Or they could just do both and hand the bill to the city council who will then reflect it on your next property tax assessment. You can add as many convoluted layers to it as you want and you’ve still got the watchman problem. I know, since you worship the FBI, CIA and NSA maybe we can just put them in charge of prosecuting bad cops. Maybe set up a secret court where evidence is sequestered from the public and the proceedings are classified top secret.

        2. If they’re already budgeting tens of millions of dollars to pay victims of criminal police officers, why wouldn’t they just pay those tens of millions to insure criminal police officers? It’s not like it’s their money. And other than “defund the police” morons, how many people really argue when local governments raise property taxes to fund “law and order”? That’s like opposing new taxes to pay for a new school.

          1. Because then extra money goes to the insurance company. It’s usually less expensive to self-insure if you can withstand the worst case.

    3. “the state could revoke licenses of bad cops. But I thought we were against licensure laws in general”

      You are confusing private sector business activity with the most core government function that exists, police. Very very dumb.

      1. I wouldn’t say dumb, just not fully thought through.

        I would support the idea of people needing to be licensed in order to do certain government work for the same reason I oppose any and all public sector unions.

        They need to be held to a higher standard. Especially the ones who carry guns and badges.

    4. Yeah, I’ve been saying that for years here.

    5. We’re against state licensure of the private sector; let the market come up with certification processes that meet the needs of consumers. Obviously we can’t ask the same of public sector jobs like police officers where there is no market discipline. Unless we decide to privatize the police, which might not be a bad thing, we do need a bureaucratic certification process to weed out bad candidates.

  3. California Democrats have very strong connections to public employee unions. It is almost impossible to fire any public employee who is represented by a union – not just cops, but teachers and state and county workers. A county permitting worker can destroy your investment, the Coastal Conservation bureaucrat can levy millions against you, and a teacher can sleep through your children’s class.
    Cops can use physical means to harm, so they get deserved attention, but all the others slide by.

  4. To be fair, realtors, contractors, and insurance agents are expected to have standards.

    1. This is what I’ve never understood about the back the blue and thin blue line assholes. They claim police are these heroes that deserve our utmost respect. However, the second any of them get out of line (which is often) they demand that they be held to no standard at all. As if being total fucking maniacs is the only way they can do the job…

      1. Take any union represented employee into a disciplinary hearing and you will see the same. Unions exist to both get higher wages and to defend the employees, usually the very worst employees.

        1. This guy gets it.

          I’ve been working in public sector labor law for 15 years, and I’ve also been a member of a collective bargain unit that entire time. (Although I don’t pay dues; I don’t need union representation on call because I’m not a shitty employee.)

          Unions can’t pick and choose which employees to go to bat for. Much like a public defender, they have to represent any employee who needs it. The result is that they end up spending most of their time and resources representing the worst, shittiest, neediest, sickliest, most useless employees at the expense of everyone else.

          Also, just having a union in the house creates an us-versus-them mindset among both union members and management, where the purpose of coming to work is to see how much you can milk from the other party rather than getting the job done and treating each other like human beings working at a common goal. Union employees protect their rights zealously and make sure to do no more than is strictly required of them under the collective bargaining agreement, and management makes sure to hold everyone’s feet to the fire at all times lest any leniency they give now might come back to haunt them in the future.

      2. “However, the second any of them get out of line (which is often) they demand that they be held to no standard at all.”

        What I usually hear is that no one can judge a cop’s actions except another cop, because you don’t know what it’s like. And how dare you try to judge someone who selflessly takes on the job of protector of the community! He’s had training! He’s a professional! WHAT ARE YOU!!111! HOW CAN YOU PUT YOURSELF IN HIS SHOES!!?! YOU HATE COPS!!!!1 YOU DON’T WANT ANY GOVERNMENT AT ALLL1!1!! AAAUUGGGGHH!!1!1

        1. Welcome to Screetch’s brain, and it’s imploding.

        2. You mean like when you spent 6 months telling us that the black capital cop who was hiding behind a plant and darted out just long enough to plug an unarmed women in the face despite the fact that there were 4 SWAT officers in full body armor with selective fire military M4 rifles trained on her back standing 5 feet behind her was a hero who was just performing his duty to protect our sacred Democratic representatives?

      3. It’s been rather hilarious watching all of the Republican cop-suckers utterly shocked and appalled to find that when the chips are down the Democratic party-line unionists they’ve been deep throating for 50 years were happy to stand by and fidget with their cocks while they watched them get beaten, shot, murdered and raped by Marxist guerrillas. Meanwhile the ACAB rabble rousing Democrats go on TV and encourage their supporters to murder cops while straddling a podium surrounded by 200 SWAT officers in full body armor and riot gear with automatic rifles strapped to their backs.

  5. The problem with police (and similarly fire) front line personnel is that their job depends on running to the fight (or fire), while everyone else is, very rationally, running away. If the city they work for doesn’t have their back, they won’t keep running to the fight. We are already seeing this where cities are coddling AntiFA and BLM – the cops play it safe while their cities burn. When the Portland Rapid Response team resigned en mass, it turned out that they had almost all been injured in the riots over the previous year. The DA is prosecuting one of their members for overzealousness, while dismissing charges against the BLM and AntiFA domestic terrorists whose rioting had injured most of the RRT members. I would suggest that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    1. If the city they work for doesn’t have their back, they won’t keep running to the fight.

      Unless they plan to break the law and violate the rights of those they’re supposed to protect and serve, I don’t see why they should worry about the city having their back.

      They’re the ones who are quick to say “Only people with something to hide have anything to worry about.”

      Well, why are they so terribly worried about being fired unless they know they’re doing something wrong?

      1. Because they don’t trust their civilian leadership, and often for good reason. Cops routinely have grievances filed against them. Sure, some are justified. Many are not. Often grievances are filed in order to counter prosecution. The entire Portland Rapid Response Team resigned recently when the DA charged one of their members, after almost every member (all 50) had been injured on the job by AntiFA and BLM rioters, whom the DA refused to prosecute.

        What must be remembered is that, in big cities in particular, individual police officers are often used as scapegoats. Their union is often the only thing keeping them from dismissal, even jail, even when they did nothing wrong. So, a lot of them won’t work for a department in a big city that doesn’t have a union. Pure self preservation.

        1. So no cops should ever face discipline because it’s not always fair?

        2. copsucker there are thousands of innocent people in jail that cops arrested

      2. Because hundreds of totally unfounded complaints are filed against police officers every year. Why? Because our corrupt litigation industry knows that if you file enough suits eventually you will get a jury that is sufficiently stupid to go along with your theory, no matter how ridiculous. (think O.J. Simpson) then you win the jackpot because cities and counties and states and the federal Gummint have very deep pockets and jurors know it. No cop no matter how conscientious could afford to defend herself against that threat without some guarantee of immunity. Additionally, most city councils would gladly throw good cops, good child protective services workers, good teachers under the bus to save a few million, hence unions and immunity or else guaranteed indemnification. By the way, if you want better police officers ya might want to stop pretending that most cops are assholes. Just saying.

      3. Ok, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re being sarcastic, but answer seriously anyway just in case it clarifies things for other readers.

        Just because a cop isn’t doing anything wrong (I know, unlikely, but work with me here) doesn’t mean they won’t be *accused* of doing something wrong. And in the case of the “mostly peaceful protests”, the folks engaging there thought “preventing arson” was “doing something wrong”.

        And I say this as someone who, for the most part, fucking *hates* cops. Which doesn’t stop me from seeing the chain of reasoning.

    2. And none of the civil disobedience by others should matter in a discussion of holding public employees, namely the police, accountable for their actions.

      If the populace doesn’t like the idea of having their cities burn down with the cops standing by and watching then maybe they should vote in representatives who do care. Apparently the majority are just fine with the situation in these cities

      1. Elections take time. NYC appears to be swerving back towards Law and Order, from De Blasio’s apparent support of violent AntiFA and BLM rioters. The person leading in the Dem primary is the Law and Order candidate, and he will likely be the one running against an even stronger Law and Order Republican.

        1. Adams will likely win.

          I liked him back in the 90s when he ran the 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement organization. But he’s become a politician since then.

          Adams won fairly big in AOC’s district beating out the AOC backed candidate.

      2. yea voting worked real good for trump

    3. The problem with police (and similarly fire) front line personnel is that their job depends on running to the fight (or fire), while everyone else is, very rationally, running away.

      Indeed.

      Perhaps the next time there is a riot, the crew at REASON can show us how to restore order without any kind of “abuse”. I am sure that by reading the NAP to the lawbreakers, REASON will convert the rioters into respecters of individual rights.

    4. Seems like a very bad system where our alternatives appear to be a) grant police blanket immunity or b) have no law enforcement at all. Almost like cops are just another dysfunctional government agency that can’t do anything right except suck the taxpayer dry.

      Maybe look at privatizing police too?

  6. When the only guaranteed way for a cop to get fired and never work again is to report criminal behavior by other cops, you know something is deeply wrong with the system.

    1. Except when they’re shooting unarmed women in the face, and then you get on your rugburned knees like the good little cocksucking faggot bootlicker you are and ask them how deep they want it.

    2. Frank Serpico once said something like, nothing will change until the bad cop fears the good cop and not the other way around.

    3. Do you just make these accusations up or do you have a kids’ fiction writer on speed dial?

  7. Ironically — MOST police only do what they do to *enforce* the law.
    Huh; Kinda like they are getting paid to do just that.

    Don’t like what *most* police do? Stop breaking the law or *change* the B.S. laws.. Of course rumor has it; Democratically controlled area’s actual have corrupt police (law-breakers themselves) which would play right into ‘Federal’ Democrats and their criminalistic ability to IGNORE the Supreme Law of the People.

    1. “Just doing my job” is no excuse for immoral behavior. Each individual is responsible for his own actions and official sanction is no cover.

    2. So it’s moral to just let suspected criminals just run away? Check.
      It’s moral to just let those who resist arrest kick the cops *ss? Check.
      Only street fights with officers is moral? Check.

  8. reason still hasn’t addressed the bad behavior by the FBI and DoJ and why some people who took selfies in the capitol building are still in jail.

    1. All Cops Are Bastards, except the black ones who shoot unarmed white women in the face without warning even though there are 4 SWAT officers with M4 rifles shouldered and aimed at her back standing 5 feet behind her.

      1. I.e. Ashli Babbitt – the only person killed at the Capital on 1/6. All the other deaths that day turned out to have been from natural causes. She died from a single gunshot, and it appears that the shooter was a large Black Capital Police officer, probably weighing twice what she did. The point about the 4 SWAT officers, is that there is no conceivable way that the shooting could have been legally justified. She couldn’t have posed a deadly threat to anyone. But was shot, none the less, and neither Congress, nor the FBI, have seen fit to either identify her assailant, nor explain why they believe that the shooting was justified.

        1. She was white and ostensibly a right-winger. That’s enough for the people involved my dude.

        2. He was also a member of a violent black racist group calling for murdering whites.

      2. “why some people who took selfies in the capitol building are still in jail.”

        Especially egregious given how the people who invaded the Kavanaugh hearings were let off with no charges.

        But Reason double standards are nothing if not consistent.

  9. Or end drug prohibition.

  10. Good to see Reason fully supports occupational licensing and using it as a cudgel to strip people of their livelihoods when it suits their ACAB narrative.

  11. Contractors who engage in bad behavior can be stripped of their licenses? How often does that happen? I’d bet cops get fired more often!

  12. “One would expect progressive California to be on the cutting edge of police reform, but Democrats have long been in the pocket of cop unions. And Republicans are their usual selves. They’re for limited and accountable government but with an asterisk: Such accountability doesn’t apply to uniformed officials who have the most power over our lives.”

    Moral Equivalence between a 900 Gorilla (CA-D) and Asthmatic Mouse with Lyme (CA-R). Keep up the virtue signaling of how everything terrible is at least 50% R.

  13. Also if you want better education, make it easier to fire poor teachers.

    But the most important thing in both cases is to remember that the federal government has no legitimate role in any of it. Local government is self-government.

  14. “These rules mostly apply to private-sector workers. But many government employees—especially police officers, who have the legal right to use deadly force—have no licensing system.”

    Beyond licensing many private-sector professions require bonds and or insurance to protect or recompense those with who they interact. Cops not only a free-riders on the taxpayers by not having like requirements, their victims seldom have any recourse due to QI.

    Government, though, will never, willingly, limit cops in any meaningful way; because, without them to loose on us, the other bureaucrats and politicians are helpless and nearly harmless limbless office drones. Cops are their club wielding hands and hob-nail booted feet.

  15. “Realtors, contractors, and insurance agents who engage in bad behavior can be stripped of their licenses. Police officers, on the other hand, rarely get fired.”

    Admittedly, I haven’t been reading reason much the last 18-24 months, but did you guys stop being opposed to professional licensing somewhere along the way?

    1. I don’t oppose private sector unions. The customers have a choice. So if the union drives up the cost of goods and services, the customers can patronize someone else. The company goes out of business due to this, people lose their jobs, the end.

      However I do oppose public sector unions because customers don’t have a choice. Well they can move, but that’s not often realistic. Just keep on hiking taxes so government employees can keep getting paid to do a shitty job.

      I’m not a fan of professional licensing because it’s often used to prevent competition at the expense of the consumer.

      But with government I see it differently. These are people who wield power over others. I see no reason why they shouldn’t be required to follow standards to keep their certification, and never work for government again if they won’t.

      1. Yeah it’s sort of backwards isn’t it. With realtors, insurance agents, etc people could chose not to use someone if they have a bad record. So there’s no absolute need for a licensing system – the free market, yelp reviews, etc can take care of the bad ones.

        In contrast I can’t choose which cops I want protecting me.

        So we’ve ended up with government control over professions which don’t need control but there’s no control over professions that DO need control.

        1. Well said.

      2. I agree with this reasoning.

  16. What is really needed is Libertarian and Leftist applicants to flood the police academies. Only those types have the mental and moral capacity to do the job properly. Unfortunately, they won’t do this type of work. Policing is what those ‘other’ people do.

  17. Public employees shouldn’t be allowed to unionize. Period.

    1. Even FDR was against that.

  18. WOW! Reason is shutting down comment quickly on a lot of stories lately. Censorship of a sort?

    1. What?

    2. They probably want to generate clicks on the newer stories.

  19. Cops aren’t like Mcdonlads employees, who can be fired at ease at the most nonsensical charges of sexual abuse. They have to be trained and certified for the job.

    That the government is not the private sector is something libertarians should understand well. Why don’t we just make it easy to sue or fire presidents, senators, and soldiers for their policies or conduct on the field? You think society can function if it paralyzed itself to eliminate individual acts of misconduct?

    Reason writers routinely ignore unintended consequences that
    conflict with their fantasy world, and engage in leftist fallacies they usually criticize with relish. By playing zero some games, cops will more likely just stay out of scenarios where they can get sued, just like any private companies. There are hundred criminals for every one innocent person who might get hurt in a traffic stop gone wrong. Don’t forget that cop aren’t obligated to protect you, and private companies won’t provide security force as private cops if they don’t have any liability protection.

    ONCE AGAIN – it’s not white people who are going to be killed if cops don’t do their jobs. I think the concept of white privilege is BS 99% of the time, but detect whiffs of it in this debate. Crime is going up and there’s been an uptick on violence on Asians. We’re seeing the fruits of anti gang efforts from the 90’s being snatched away. Your tongue will remain clean for not licking the boots of cops, but the streets of America will likely be stained with more blood.

  20. Why don’t we eliminate a whole bunch of bad laws? If there were fewer laws, there would be fewer reasons to arrest people. The police are mostly enforcing a lot of very stupid laws that punish people way too harshly.

    Eric Garner getting arrested and killed for selling cigarettes on the streets is the rallying cry of Libertarians, and a perfect example of this.

    Enact a lot of stupid laws; win a lot of stupid prizes.

  21. Want Better Policing? Stop allowing other people to hire and pay for your Cop(s).

  22. “Want better policing?” Privatize. Police are relatively new to civilization. If we believe the statist apologists that no police means chaos, then there was no past civilizations. Except written history exists that show that to be false. Education used to private in the 13 American countries that seceded from the U.K. And those Americans were for literate, more independent, more economically progressive, and happier.
    Want better infrastructure? Better schools? Better charities?

  23. I believe a good behavioral scientist could weed out bad applicants.

    1. Actually psychology is very bad at identifying narcissists and sociopaths who are by definition very manipulative. Those are the ones you need to watch out for.

  24. Forget firing bad cops, libertarians and progressives (but I repeat myself) have made it impossible to hire and retain good cops.

    1. Liberals/progressives actually endorse criminal activity.

  25. This, like most things today, this is blown out of proportion. I’m 65. I was hell on wheels in my teens and 20’s. I was regularly stopped by cops who knew me and hassled. Got tuned up a couple of times just because. Cops, the environment, race relations, etc.. Are all better now. By any reasonable measurement. But noooo. The worlds only got 20 yrs. Everyone’s racist, and cops are all predators. Gheesssshhhh!

    1. Yup. It’s like I always say: Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair! ™

  26. Police are outnumbered and outgunned. The only way they can be effective is when the public respects the law and authority.

    The uniform, badge, marked car, and even the sidearm are there to project authority. When bad cops result in lack of trust and respect from the public the good cops cannot effectively do their jobs.

    Still there is a blue wall because it keeps the bad cops out of the public eye. If it were not for a 17 year old girl with a cellphone that would have happened with Chauvin. There was no escaping that video.

  27. Make sure there are no Demoncrap liberals in the city government including mayors. That goes for all Soros bought and paid for D.A.s.
    Better yet, Soros and his little bastard son need to be arrested charged with treason and insurrection and tossed into jail. All their bank accounts, property and any other holdings seized such as was done in Malaysia.
    Give police/ National Guard free rein to open fire on rioters. Arrest the leaders of BLM for treason and insurrection and causing billions in property damage, murder and theft.

  28. I’ve been saying this for a year now. The Police Officers Bill of Rights needs to be reformed. In a country where Derek Chauvin can have 17 brutality complaints and still have a job, districts need to be able to fire bad, incompetent, bully cops. That’s the reform that needs to happen, not defunding or other foolish idea.

    1. Were all 17 complaints valid?

Comments are closed.