|
It sounds like we need to start changing laws at the state level with DoJ making a push more than a nudge.
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:As a reminder, it wold be unconstitutional to nationalize the police, and very difficult to constitutionally justify nationalized police training. This isn't a fringe right-wing viewpoint- it's explicitly the purpose of the police powers clause. Federalized direct control of law enforcement is a Bad Idea. I have to ask, why was this done and why even standardising police train on a national level is a Bad Idea or why Federalized direct control of law enforcement is a Bad Idea or the original rational behind the police powers clause because as it currently stands, your statement is pretty useless considering every other first world nation has a functioning national police. Yet you have the FBI, DEA, ATF or whatever alphabet law enforcement entity at the Federal level yet jumping in locally at a whim. You managed to nationalize the Army from the fragmented state militias, although I don't know what the impetus for that was. Of course you have a clause stating that you can't deploy the army locally without individual state's permission. Why couldn't give standardize training by removing the funding pressure of training a new cop by offering it on a federal level and paying for said salaries. That way, the police would still be controlled locally, but train and funded partially at the Federal level. There shouldn't be a problem funding the police federally since giving or selling military equipment doesn't seem to be an issue nor is training when you have "Terrorism" training offered Federally. You do want to unify the police command structure as this would help bring accountability as they would answer to one clear(er) chain of command allowing corrections to propagate far quicker and more evenly. It would also prevent the farce that the Boston Marathon Bomber or an big operation where you had 2000 cop show up, uncontrolled and un-commanded to the point where they are shooting each other and arguing who has control and credit for the take down. poo poo is a loving Embarrassment. But I wouldn't do this without first instituting the training changes first. Remember you have a police system that still contains throwbacks to the Wild West. Not to mention the fact that you guys tear the constitution whenever it's convenient by reapplying it differently or straight up ignoring it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Congress probably could do a lot more to federalize the police under the 14th amendment given a sympathetic supreme court
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Honestly not sure what the scare is about national police is considering it's not 1776 and there are some things in our constitution that just straight up exist because of a very specific political situation that no longer really applies. However, assuming that nationalizing police is a bad idea, giving police forces national standards to follow as well as oversight and consequences for stuff like Ferguson would still seemingly be a great idea that could skirt the idea of direct nationalization. I mean, what could possibly be worse than the current system of letting fucks like Joe Arpaio run their little fiefdoms?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Were it ever to be completely legal, how could they use that as justification? You can't search a drunk drivers car afaik since being drunk is the crime, possession of a non-open container isn't. Unfortunately I'm sure it'll be used anyway. There's no way I can say the alphabet backwards while stone-cold sober.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Congress probably could do a lot more to federalize the police under the 14th amendment given a sympathetic supreme court You could standardize due process but that's already done more or less.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:I have to ask, why was this done and why even standardising police train on a national level is a Bad Idea or why Federalized direct control of law enforcement is a Bad Idea or the original rational behind the police powers clause because as it currently stands, your statement is pretty useless considering every other first world nation has a functioning national police. Yet you have the FBI, DEA, ATF or whatever alphabet law enforcement entity at the Federal level yet jumping in locally at a whim. DrNutt posted:Honestly not sure what the scare is about national police is considering it's not 1776 and there are some things in our constitution that just straight up exist because of a very specific political situation that no longer really applies. Well, off the top of my head, you're going to need a lot of federal money if you intend to take over every law enforcement training program in the country, and your choices at that point are deficit spending or trying to federalize a greater percentage of tax revenue, and in the latter case I think you'll find that standing up a national police force was the easy part. That's leaving aside that our government lacks the authority and the mechanism to do something like that. You're wrong about the Army, we still have 50 state militias in the form of the National Guard, and that isn't even getting into crazy poo poo like state military reserves. The reason it works is that the Congress and President's powers to organize, train, equip, call up, and command the Militia are spelled out in the Constitution. National defense is one of the few explicitly reserved powers. I still haven't seen anyone actually explain what the differences and deficiencies in police training are that result in unjust outcomes, especially in light of the fact that people keep insisting that black people being shot by the police is a national phenomenon. How, exactly, is the Peoria PD worse-trained than the California Highway Patrol? It seems like you're mostly reaching for a club to gently caress local government with and federalize power for no good reason. And if you think a national Gendarme is a good idea, I would remind you that Donald Trump is the current front-runner of one of our two parties.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:There's no way I can say the alphabet backwards while stone-cold sober. According to brother in law cop you don't have to get it right, but watching a sober person try to do it vs someone who is drunk or high makes it easy to tell the difference a lot of the time. Sort of like the touching your nose with your eyes closed and head back, sober people can miss but if your drunk it's obvious you're just trying to not fall on your rear end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:According to brother in law cop you don't have to get it right, but watching a sober person try to do it vs someone who is drunk or high makes it easy to tell the difference a lot of the time. Sort of like the touching your nose with your eyes closed and head back, sober people can miss but if your drunk it's obvious you're just trying to not fall on your rear end. Also, anyone trying to prove they're sober by trying it is obviously already too drunk to say "gently caress you, I'm sober"
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
If you think the feda are really any better at not abusing the poo poo out of people's rights you haven't been paying good attention. The difference is that the feds would have more resources and would be harder to avoid. The reverse alphabet FST is junk. It is backed by no research, unlike the walk and turn and romberg and the like, and I doubt the competence of any officer who does it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Why don't you just use a breathalyser? It's what we do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You could standardize due process but that's already done more or less. No, I mean basically "shut up, this is what you do, procedure and everything" under a section 5 finding that this is necessary to enforce section 1.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Starshark posted:Why don't you just use a breathalyser? It's what we do. They do that too. The FSTs are really just an attempt to give them even more evidence. Almost everyone fails the FSTs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 03:31
|
|
DrNutt posted:Honestly not sure what the scare is about national police is considering it's not 1776 and there are some things in our constitution that just straight up exist because of a very specific political situation that no longer really applies. Because if you think the current standards of police conduct are inappropriate, imagine them if they were intentionally implemented on a national scale under, e.g., a Reagan administration. The police powers clause is a good one.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
You're going to deficit spend anyway and if you can fund and stand up the useless boondoggles like the DHS, TSA, DEA, ATF money isn't the issue. It has always been a question of political will and the fact the US doesn't function as a modern government. You're still running it like it's the 18th century where it made sense back then dude to limits on technology when it came to communication. As for whether the Feds would be better than locals, when there is a failure and a fix is to be made, how much easier is it to fix one large entity than 50*X local departments. As for the question of Black people being shot, you haven't been paying any attention to this thread have you DR. As long as you keep drive by poo poo posting, your going to keep posting dumb questions like that. Compare training regimes with other countries in both depth of said training, standardization and length results in superior officers or at very least interchangeable ones. When we were short on officers for a while, we imported British officers and outright ruled out US ones as they wouldn't have made muster. We certainly don't have idiots cheat and buying their way into law enforcement just so they can play cops and robbers that are only found out after shooting someone dead. Then you have UN Human rights violators like Joe Arpaio who should be in the prison instead of running it still running around because??? The gently caress does Trump got to do with this? If anything, if you do manage to vote in Trump, then the sky is the limit on the dumb crazy poo poo you can try to do to fix the country. So insane it might just work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:I mean, what could possibly be worse than the current system of letting fucks like Joe Arpaio run their little fiefdoms? The system of letting a gently caress like Joe Arpaio run the whole country? I'm not saying I'm necessarily against federalization, but.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:You're going to deficit spend anyway and if you can fund and stand up the useless boondoggles like the DHS, TSA, DEA, ATF money isn't the issue. It has always been a question of political will and the fact the US doesn't function as a modern government. You're still running it like it's the 18th century where it made sense back then dude to limits on technology when it came to communication. Dead Reckoning posted:Look, clearly we can solve America's problems if we make the whole country New York State or California.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
And I am sure that the status quo is just fine as it is. The problem with you is you drive by, snipe some poor poster with something pedantic and pat yourself on the back for a job well done. Yeah we should take you seriously for contributing nothing. As for Trump.  . No one sane actually expects Trump to win. And oh him being Commander and Chief is just alright because he isn't the chief of police.You don't make the president the chief of all police, that would be dumb. Have them report to congress or the senate or the supreme court if you're worried about loading the president with more "power". The reality is that as a country you're not willing to change with the times and function as a nation. The problems you have are structural. That is the reality. Until you acknowledge those problems for what they are, you're going to keep band-aiding uselessly. Do remember that you tear the Constitution every day because it's convenient, why not do it for the right reasons for the right things instead of things like justifying torture. As for standardised police training, look at what happened last time in Fergurson when they deployed the military. The military came in with their uniformed, superior training and control, using less force and equipment. This is what standardising your police can do for you. Cowboying up isn't working, time to try something else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
No amount of sympathy will get the Supreme Court to agree to a nationalizing of the police. Federalism is a pretty strong legal doctrine, and replacing local police and sheriffs with a federal police force is the kind of conspiracy poo poo that motivates 2nd amendment nut jobs. Edit: also lots not forget the federal agents don't exactly have a great track record for not being horribly racist and incompetent. The federal government surely has an important role to play in this, but it will 100% rely on people and institutions which already exist. wedgie deliverer fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
hi liter posted:No amount of sympathy will get the Supreme Court to agree to a nationalizing of the police. Federalism is a pretty strong legal doctrine, and replacing local police and sheriffs with a federal police force is the kind of conspiracy poo poo that motivates 2nd amendment nut jobs. Both true. While nationalization would be the best answer imo, standardization even on the state level would do wonders if you were to improve the length and type of train. If nothing else it would reduce the problem from 50*X police forces to 50 more manageable problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:You don't make the president the chief of all police, that would be dumb. Have them report to congress or the senate or the supreme court if you're worried about loading the president with more "power". The reality is that as a country you're not willing to change with the times and function as a nation. The problems you have are structural. That is the reality. Until you acknowledge those problems for what they are, you're going to keep band-aiding uselessly. Do remember that you tear the Constitution every day because it's convenient, why not do it for the right reasons for the right things instead of things like justifying torture. Here's the thing, you keep asserting that "the problems are structural," but you haven't actually shown any evidence of it other than "I think Europe is better." If you aren't going to take hiring out of the hands of state and local officials, then changing which pot of money the academy comes from isn't going to change cultural problems, (I know, you think everything would be better if it was standardized, but can you point out a department with deficient training and contrast it with one with better training?) and if you are planning to take HR decision out of the hands of local officials, then you're going to trade one set of perverse incentives and structural problems for another. Trust me, I've worked for the government. oohhboy posted:As for standardised police training, look at what happened last time in Fergurson when they deployed the military. The military came in with their uniformed, superior training and control, using less force and equipment. This is what standardising your police can do for you. Cowboying up isn't working, time to try something else.  oohhboy posted:Both true. While nationalization would be the best answer imo, standardization even on the state level would do wonders if you were to improve the length and type of train. If nothing else it would reduce the problem from 50*X police forces to 50 more manageable problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You are aware that the Guardsmen weren't actually called upon to do any policing or crowd control, yes? Probably because that has gone... poorly in the past. By controlling the training you can start changing the culture. No doubt with anything done in government you would be trading one problem for another, but ask yourself what is more manageable? What you have now or something that is even partially amalgamated. If you can't solve all the problems at once, re-factorize and reduce the number and types of problems to something that you can work with by trading them. I mean, gently caress, how dysfunctional do you have to be to not have working statistics on a national level. I am aware of past failure on this front. Question becomes, why and how to fix this, not didn't work *throws hands up in the air* which you so keenly like to do. This isn't how a modern nation state operates. Dead Reckoning posted:(I know, you think everything would be better if it was standardized, but can you point out a department with deficient training and contrast it with one with better training?)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
Starshark posted:Why don't you just use a breathalyser? It's what we do. This conversation was 20ish years ago when breathalyzers were fairly new and I believe there was still questions as to accuracy depending on how long ago you had a drink, say you were pulled over leaving a bar and just had a shot you'd blow higher since there would be more alcohol in your mouth/throat. Note I have no idea how true that is, just going off what he said. Which goes back to my original question, there is no thc version of a breathalyzer that I know of and being a little buzzed most people could pass most FSTs so I wonder how they are going to handle legal pot and DWI/DUIs. Or even if a breathalyzer type test was developed THC levels aren't a very accurate way to determine how impaired you are, the same levels have vastly different effects on each person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:This conversation was 20ish years ago when breathalyzers were fairly new and I believe there was still questions as to accuracy depending on how long ago you had a drink, say you were pulled over leaving a bar and just had a shot you'd blow higher since there would be more alcohol in your mouth/throat. Note I have no idea how true that is, just going off what he said. As a note, breathalyzers are still inaccurate as all hell, but at the same time courts have upheld that their results are de jure correct, constitute evidence, and cannot be examined or challenged by the defense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
nm posted:If you think the feda are really any better at not abusing the poo poo out of people's rights you haven't been paying good attention. It's not part of the standard battery. Standard battery is HGN, walk and turn, and one leg stand. And even on the walk and turn and one leg getting the count wrong is not a drunk indicator. Some people are dumb and can't count. So you could literally count " one...four...monkey... vagina" and not fail as long as you kept your balance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:As a note, breathalyzers are still inaccurate as all hell, but at the same time courts have upheld that their results are de jure correct, constitute evidence, and cannot be examined or challenged by the defense. Which courts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Which courts? Aren't you the attorney with Westlaw access or whatever overpriced system exists to deprive the citizenry of free and open interaction with the legal system ostensibly meant to serve the people? Look it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Aren't you the attorney with Westlaw access or whatever overpriced system exists to deprive the citizenry of free and open interaction with the legal system ostensibly meant to serve the people? Look it up. Every case I am aware of allows the defense to cross examine the officer on his level of training/experience. Error rate. Frequency of calibration. Etc. (And FYI there are a lot of free legal research sources. Findlaw is a good one. And you have access to your local courthouse law library. Hth)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Aren't you the attorney with Westlaw access or whatever overpriced system exists to deprive the citizenry of free and open interaction with the legal system ostensibly meant to serve the people? Look it up. Cases, statutes, and other sources of law are all available for free, publicly. Secondary sources, treatises, annotations, and scholarship are not as easily available, just as in most professions. Westlaw, et al. make legal research easier for sure, but it's nothing that couldn't be accomplished by a lay person using Google or a law library.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Cases, statutes, and other sources of law are all available for free, publicly. Secondary sources, treatises, annotations, and scholarship are not as easily available, just as in most professions. Shut up bougie scum. I want free poo poo. The citizenry has rights. It really baffles me that people think westlaw should be free. Why aren't video games free? Why isn't Photoshop free? ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:(And FYI there are a lot of free legal research sources. Findlaw is a good one. And you have access to your local courthouse law library. Hth) Just loving  Edit: a well trained and educated Prosecutor advocating that people self defend.
Pohl fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Shut up bougie scum. I want free poo poo. The citizenry has rights. westlaw should be free, at least the reported cases otoh, we're still fighting states trying to assert copyright to their statutes, so...
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Shut up bougie scum. I want free poo poo. The citizenry has rights. Well, they are, we just aren't allowed to discuss that here. Westlaw is also free under similar theories (and explains why so many law students get hired at small shops)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Every case I am aware of allows the defense to cross examine the officer on his level of training/experience. Error rate. Frequency of calibration. Etc. Not what I was talking about. For a professed lawyer you're really bad at reading comprehension. ActusRhesus posted:Shut up bougie scum. I want free poo poo. The citizenry has rights. How dare citizens demand to know how their government operates in the legal sphere! This is a privilege afforded only to the wealthy. LeJackal fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Just loving Actually the "lol" part is the idea that it isn't completely trivial to get access to a ton legal sources for completely free, assuming you live anywhere near people. And if not there are still lots of options. Westlaw costing money isn't holding anyone back that is actually interested in researching the issue, but lazy people love to pull any excuse they can think of. It's not the 50s anymore gramps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Actually the "lol" part is the idea that it isn't completely trivial to get access to a ton legal sources for completely free, assuming you live anywhere near people. And if not there are still lots of options. Westlaw costing money isn't holding anyone back that is actually interested in researching the issue, but lazy people love to pull any excuse they can think of. It is if you get charged with a crime are you going to self defend? I loving doubt it, you are going to hire a lawyer. You are going to hire a lawyer because it is the smart thing to do. If you do defend yourself, you may in fact be an idiot. Or you could just be incredibly poor and not able to afford an attorney, and your Public defender sucks. Go to jail gramps. Where did that it isn't the 50's line even come from? Pure anger? Pohl fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Just loving No. I was pointing out that there are free research outlets available. That is not the same as recommending people self represent. LeJackal posted:Not what I was talking about. For a professed lawyer you're really bad at reading comprehension. Maybe you should make your points more clear? And you are not demanding to know how your government works. You are asking a private company to give you it's intellectual property for free. Go to the loving library, you scrub.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Pohl posted:It is No one is talking about self defending. Once again you are a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
LeJackal posted:How dare citizens demand to know how their government operates in the legal sphere! This is a privilege afforded only to the wealthy. And people who can go to Findlaw. Or Google Scholar. Or the library. It's almost like Westlaw does more than just provide access to cases and people pay them for that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:06
|
|
