Law Enforcement Reform: A rational discussion

How about it. Can we set aside the anger and hate and the need to disagree for the sake of being disagreeable and have a rational discussion?

The system needs to change. From top to bottom and end to end. It is not just the police in the street. Yes they're the most visible part of the problem but they are only one aspect:

How about coroners who fudge reports to give a desired rather than a factual result?
How about a legal system where only the wealthy are guaranteed "equal justice?"
That same justice system where the prosecution has virtually unlimited resources to pursue a conviction while public defenders are overworked, underfunded, and make do with what they have?
Bail systems that ensure the poor are incarcerated for months for minor offense before seeing a court while the well to do are home on bail or released on no-bail?
A judicial system that sentences people of color much more harshly than White people for identical crimes?
A prison system where the well to do go to "country club prisons" while poor people convicted of identical crimes go to "the big house?"
A prison system where prisoners are segregated because it is easier to segregate and maintain racial divisions than to work through them. Besides, as long as the prisoners are at each others throats...

This list is not exhaustive and each item deserves a thread of its own but we can start here.

And I will start.

 

Not to nitpick, but the content is more about criminal justice reform than law enforcement reform.

The first step, of course, is for people to recognize and agree that there is a problem with the system. That sounds easy enough, but I've found it isn't. People dispute statistics and facts. So it's hard to have a discussion about the importance of criminal justice reform when people just want criminals punished. Period.

The first step I would like to see is a grading system of criminal offences. For example, make sure that simple possession of a small amount of pot doesn't incarcerate someone for years.

 

Criminal prosecution and defense:

I propose that all defendants, no matter their station, receive public defenders and that the PD and the PD office resources are the only resources available to the defense.
Further I propose that the prosecutors and public defenders will receive equal funding.

Going back 25 years there was not a doubt in my mind that OJ Simpson was guilty. There also was not a doubt in my mind that the LAPD and prosecutors tried to fix the case by planting evidence. Because of the actions of the LAPD I found I had to exclude much of the most damning evidence and what remained was insufficient to overcome reasonable doubt.

There is also no doubt in my mind that if Simpson had not had the wealth and notoriety he possessed his attorneys and investigators would not have succeeded in overcoming the LAPD malfeasanse and Simpson would have been convicted.

Each and every defendant in every court in every state deserves the quality of defense Simpson received.

To level that playing field we will remove wealth from the equation and ensure both sides have the same resources to put on their cases.

This will help equalize a system that now tilts heavily in favor of the well to do.

 

The police are only one part of the law enforcement equation.

So you want sentencing reform such that extreme sentences for relatively minor crimes are eliminated.

I can agree with that.

How about "three strike laws" when the 2nd or 3rd strike is a very minor offense?
I can agree with the concept of 3 strikes but my feeling is that the "three strikes" should be for crimes that each, individually, would qualify for the sentence rendered.

Sentencing someone to prison for life for stealing a sandwich is unacceptable.

 

For the police:

How about a new classification of peace officer? We'll call it "Public Service Officer"

He's got a uniform and a badge.
But it's a different uniform.
He writes parking tickets.
He directs traffic.
He responds to traffic accidents.
He walks, that's right, walks around neighborhoods.
He drives on patrol but when he sees a crime he calls it in.
If he sees dangerous driving he records it and gets the plate. Then he reports it.

How much of police work is just this kind of stuff?
How many of the "other kind" of cop do we really need once we hire and train the "Public Service Officers?"

How would policing like this change the public perception of police?

 

A lot of that would be reduced or eliminated simply by ending the war on drugs. I would start there.

I would also avoid starting a war on guns, for precisely the same reasons.

 

Well that's what the 'defunding' proposition is all about. Police become guardians of the community instead of warriors. And there is an introduction of different levels of services that specialize in helping the communities in other ways.

 

I would agree with your first point.
On your second I would ask you to stay on topic.

 

So it is your belief that before the scene was fully processed and what had really happened was still unknown, you think that Mark Furman decided to plant the bloody glove an hour after being at the original crime scene in order to frame the at that time universally beloved celebrity OJ Simpson?

While you are most certainly entitled to your opinion, I personally think that your belief is unmitigated nonsense. Fast forward to your opinions expressed today. At least you are consistent.

With that as the backdrop, I am not sure that a rational discussion is even possible.

 

A good start,
As of June 3, 2020, the United States Senate has confirmed 198 Article III judges nominated by President Trump, including 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 51 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, 143 judges for the United States District Courts, and 2 judges for the United States Court of International Trade.[2] There are currently 43 nominations to Article III courts awaiting Senate action, including 2 for the Courts of Appeals, 40 for the District Courts and 1 for the Court of International Trade.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

 

Agreed. I think some folks took the "defund" and ran with it ti frighten people.

We'd still have the "guys with guns" but their interactions with the public would be few and

this just occurred to me...

The services of the guys with guns could be shared among multiple communities saving money for other services!

 

Or, the number of those guys with guns will be less - freeing up finances for the other services. The original 'guys with guns' can be assessed and retrained if possible in these new services.

 

Whatever.

Start with Furman climbing over the wall at Simpson's house.
He suspected a violent murderer was there and he went in alone? seriously?
No indication that anyone in the house was in danger but he couldn't wait for backup?

Magic socks?
Found on the be but magically were not on the bed a few minutes earlier.

Questions about the blood at the scene and on the socks and we find that an officer took a vial of simpson's blood and disappeared with it for several hours.

If you don't understand the meaning of "reasonable doubt" perhaps this isn't the discussion for you.

 

Thanks for starting this discussion. I think a huge part of the problem is there is no real oversight. How can someone have their voices heard when the very people who are supposed to serve and protect them are "investigated" by other cops (co-workers and friends)?

I was helping someone on a case a few years back. It was about an abusive cop who threatened him out and announced that he knew nothing would happen to him because he's "untouchable". It was ignored. I talked to an attorney about it and was told that he couldn't help because he was inundated with police brutality cases. His only suggestion was "call another branch of LEOs.".

 

I dont think anyone wants to really get into the weeds concerning the OJ case. Like I said...you are entitled to your opinion.

The notion that a cop is going to quickly frame a beloved celebrity long before all facts are known simply does not seem even remotely plausible to me. It is my belief that your opinion represents a false narrative. It is my belief that the notion that there is some sort of systemic racism leading to an inordinate number of blacks being killed by police is an equally false narrative.

 

I figured avoiding further corruptive influences on our justice system would be just as relevent as eliminating current corruptive influences on our justice system.

My mistake ...apparently.

 

Individual officers need to be less confrontational, at first. This doesn't mean that anyone gets away with breaking the law. It doesn't mean that police can't become more confrontational if public safety or their own safety is compromised. If one looks at how game wardens are trained to approach crime and how some police approach crime one will see a difference. You usually get better outcomes if you begin from the point that you can succeed without force knowing you can resort to that if necessary. Confrontation should come from the suspect not the officer.

 

Did you not read my initial post where I said Simpson was guilty?

Furman and others felt the need to plant evidence (you can't actually frame a guilty person) BECAUSE Simpson was a celebrity and Furman believed they wouldn't get a conviction w/o the planted evidence. Furman's racist past just played into the defense plan. It was 3 years after the LA riots and people were on edge about race. A white cop apparently framing a Black celebrity? On married to a gorgeous White woman?

Remember this...it was a unanimous verdict. Obviously 12 people on the jury agree with me.

 

If you want to have an argument about guns there are plenty of threads available.

 

Completely agree that people ignore statistics. Like a cop is 18x more likely to be killed by a black guy than a black guy is to be killed by a cop.

Stats like police killings make up less than .0002% of the total murders in this country.

Stats like police brutality claims occur in less than .000001% of all police interactions.

Stats like complaints against the police occur .005% of all police interactions.

Stats like 99.1% of all cops have ZERO complaints against them.

Damn that sounds terrible. And what percentage would you folks find acceptable?

 

This is completely delusional. What do you think gang bangers, murderers, robbers and rapists will think about your unarmed “Public Service Officers”?

 

Im not looking to have an argument about guns any more than Im looking to have an argument about drugs. The point is that when LE are tasked to try to contain or restrict any easily obtainable product (or service- the same is true with abortion to a degree), not only is the black market and associated crime empowered, but LE is innevitably both corrupted and militarized and the citizenry become more victimized and criminalized.

Its not just drugs we need to stop trying to control if we want our police to 'protect and serve' again. We need to stop trying to ban **** in general.

 

Good luck finding people who will for meager wages to work in high crime neighborhoods.

 

Why did Eric Gardner die?
Yes, a cop applied a illegal choke hold, that’s obvious.
Why were the cops even interacting with Eric Gardner in the first place?
Because, some do gooder nanny statist made it a violation to sell single cigarettes in public.

I’m sorry nanny staters, you can’t have it both ways.
You constantly crank out laws that intrude in the daily lives of Americans, then you get upset when something goes wrong while cops are enforcing those very laws.

 

Isn't it amazing how fast we went from: Cut someone's hair during quarantine and you're going to jail to: Abolish the police?