This country was founded on checks and balances. We are missing that in regards to police nationwide.
Most other places in the world cops have to train for +24 months and most of it is focused on physical conditioning, descalation/conflict psychology, and Law.
I mean knowing my local government incompetence I would be pretty nervous in having people with guns being trained by a local institution. It needs to be federal, standardized, and just longer than the few months training US cops have.
You are militarizing incompetent institutions (with military grade hand me downs) which have far less trigger discipline than actual military.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/02/14/...
Issue is not that they are incompetent. Issue is that they know fully well they can get away with it. And real world proves them right almost every time.
Well at least here the answer is somewhat simple.
There is a deep ingrained level of distrust for federal government. It has been there since country's foundation and the past few decades have done nothing to lower it ( and one can reasonably argue it has only increased ). In a sense, the reason is structural.
<< It needs to be federal, standardized, and just longer than the few months training US cops have.
FWIW, FBI is effectively federal police. I think you will agree that they had their fair share of, uhm, not great behavior.
<< I mean knowing my local government incompetence I would be pretty nervous in having people with guns being trained by a local institution.
The whole point of cop that is local is that people will not, ehkm, revolt, because random guy from NY got plopped in AK and does not understand the basic environment they are in.
I personally prefer local. I think last year I went to our local quarterly neighbors/cops outreach and I was largely happy with what the sheriff had to say, because it dealt with MY local issues and not some pre-ordained stuff from the top.
Like I said, the issue is structural, because US is a massive country.
Why have states at all rather than one federal government that decides all laws?
I disagree. Since having radically different roles and powers for police, rasically different organizational structures for poloce, or not even having anything that exactly fits the typical concept of “police" are also within the acceptable variation, and all of those factor in to minimim quals, minimum quals for police absolutely are legitimate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_lette...
The system is working as designed.
Institutions change over time.
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
But sure, this system that obviously had a huge impact on how the country developed, how power structures were purposely designed, and how freedom even worked, TECHNICALLY wasn't the primary reason for rebelling, maybe.
No technically about it. Though you're right about the rest.
> His stories about George Washington, none of which I knew, are even more fascinating. Bueno de Mesquita claims, quite plausibly, that a huge part of George Washington’s motive for fighting the Revolutionary War was to protect his substantial, and critically placed, landholdings in the Ohio Valley. I’m not saying that I agree with him, but his story made me realize that a large part of my belief in GW is romantic: because I learned about him so early in life, that romantic view is harder to shake and I’ve been less willing to put GW under the public choice microscope than with any current or recent president.
> An excerpt about GW’s wealth:
>> His last position, just before becoming President, was President of the Patowmack Canal Company–the Potomac Canal, as we know it, from the Potomac River. What that canal did was bring, make it possible to bring produce from the Shenandoah Valley–which George owned–up to the port in Alexandria, which had been built by Lawrence, by the Ohio Valley Company, in which George had a direct interest, and shipped goods out. So it was a very profitable undertaking–or so he thought it would be, in the long run, for him. And that’s what motivated him. Most people think of Washington as–besides a great hero, which he certainly was–as kind of a gentleman farmer. Economists have estimated the worth in real dollars adjusted for inflation, not appreciated, of George Washington’s estate, in contemporary terms; and it’s about $20 billion dollars. He is by far the wealthiest President. He is the 59th wealthiest person in American history. Three of the American founding fathers are in the list of the top 100 wealthiest Americans in all of history: Hancock, who was wealthier than Washington–made his money smuggling; and Ben Franklin, who was not quite as wealthy, who made his money because he had a monopoly on the printing press. These are the folks who led the Revolution. These were not the downtrodden. These were not the oppressed. These were people who stood to lose huge amounts of wealth because of the King’s policies. And so they fought a Revolution. Which was, by the way, not very popular. Sixty percent of the colonists either were neutral or opposed to the Revolution.
The second amendment protects organized armed resistance against state-level tyranny, whether external or internal.
Can't have a militia of one.
I especially dislike how people will point to the private writings of certain founding fathers to support their 2A opinions, even though what was ratified by the states was NOT those private writings, but rather the very very short amendment.
Individual officers benefit from this, too. It keeps the relationship between citizens and police much healthier.
We need to end QI and make the police earn their keep. In general, they've cozied up too close with any potential oversight for a reasonable person to have faith in them being held accountable for misdeeds.
(I say this as someone who's been grateful for police presence before)
Is this impossible to do in the US?
https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/w...
It's generally not expensive enough to create enough economic pain to break through the 2 party (or 1 party in many locales) political system.
When people sue a public company, the people who in the end must hold the people responsible will be the share holders. When government are sued, it is the voters that must hold the people responsible. If a local government is found guilty in a court of law and forced to pay millions in damages, the money need to be either from raised taxes or reduced services. Both of those should be strong points for the opposition to gain votes and kick out the people who are responsible.
Where I live, when the government is found guilty and forced to pay out it usually also result in the current local leader responsible for the situation being forced out. Mismanagement is not a effective way to gain votes, so if the leader don't step down volunteerly the party may just want to replace them anyway for someone without such baggage during next election. Maybe US politics and the system around political donations makes such results less common?
This is a red herring. Qualified immunity only protects individual cops from civil liability, not from criminal liability. And above all, proper check for police is neither civil nor criminal liability, but independent institution for investigation of criminal and professional misconduct (like police IA division, but independent and ideally under different level of government - e.g. state or federal for checking municipal police).
Then why is literal theft protected by qualified immunity? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibill...