Protesters Are Correct Change Is Needed, But Thoroughly Thoughful Changes!

JimofPennsylvan

Platinum Member
Jun 6, 2007
849
478
910
In regards to the protest over Geroge Floyd and systematic racism, it is clear that "ordinary" Americans are rising to the occasion recognizing the times, that significant changes are needed in America now, but our "leaders" are not. America should be seeing it's leaders in Congress joining in bi-partisan groups to recommend specific pieces of legislation to solve parts of this problem, of course there is no real hope such proposals will become law in the near future with the present President whose obvious top priority is not alienating his political base and getting reelected but that shouldn't matter to good patriotic Congressional leaders of both parties who care about this serious national problem because good bi-partisan proposals would be laying the groundwork to get such bills passed into laws at a later time. Those bills would be valuable tools for individuals and groups advocating for solutions to these problems they would help these advocates stir up public pressure on members of Congress and the President to enact these bills into laws. What America is seeing from our leaders is politicization of this issue, the Democrat Party is putting together a big committee to come up with specific policy proposals that can become the Democrat Party platform on this subject: does anyone really think that this committee with the body of proposals it will likely produce if such were put into a bill and the bill passed into law would be good for America? It would make things dramatically worse the country doesn't need efforts that pander to anger, self promotion and other nefarious things it needs efforts that do right by everyone's interests!

There is a lot of good proposals being bantered around our society. National legislation requiring better and mandatory training in the use of force for police departments is a good one; I was shocked and embarrassed for my region Philadelphia where during a protest for Mr. Floyd a Philly police officer in taking a protester into custody struck the peaceful protester in the head with a baton and when that protester was on the ground a police officer put and kept his knee on the protesters head as the protester was handcuffed. There should be bright line rules that officers follow no baton strikes to the head, to the legs and body area okay and if worse comes to worse the collar bone area but not to the head the head is too fragile it is too easy to cripple or kill someone with a baton strike to the head. There should be bright line rules of no police knee to the head, neck or spine of a person being arrested when they are on the ground it is too easy to damage that person's spine or impair the person's ability to breath.

Another good proposal is passing a national law banning police choke holds to subdue, control or arrest a person; how many people have to die by this means at the hands of the police before our society recognizes it is unjust and unnecessary behavior by police. Of course a good policy would be a National law requiring all police departments to document from a demographic and "reasons for" standpoint all their car stops and police stops of people on the street to ensure that the police officers involved are not doing racial profiling. This overall police brutality issue, calls for a national law that in effect bands police union collective bargaining agreements from obstructing police management from removing violent police officers from the department; time and again the public hears about police officers getting their job back from police review panels or arbitrators where it is morally indefensible to put the person in question back in uniform. The national law could give police management the power, impenetrable by collective bargaining agreements, that where a police officer used excessive force and the victim suffered serious bodily injury or died the police officer can be fired and where a police officer used excessive force on three separate occasions over a five year period that police officer can be fired; the law shall provide that these cases are not to go to police review boards and/or arbitrators the fired police officer only has the write to bring a wrongful termination lawsuit in such a case and if the officer wins the case there is to be no punitive damages or pain and suffering damages the officer only gets reinstatement, back pay and legal fees! Local county officials cannot be trusted to negotiate these provisions into police contracts because police unions are too powerful, they will bock such provisions.


Another good proposal is passing a national law requiring all states to take the jurisdiction of investigating and prosecuting police shootings out of the local District attorney's offices hands it should be under the sole jurisdiction of the respective state's Attorney General's Office; if it is left in the local District Attorney Office's jurisdiction there exist too many obstacles to getting justice. In most counties, local prosecutors and local police officers are good friends because they work together on so many criminal cases and most local District Attorneys have to run for office so they need union support and police union support is often vital in getting all union support and local power brokers which a District Attorney needs support from to win re-election care about public safety and keeping order, justice in a police shooting is often a far lesser priority for them so seeing justice done in police shootings often gets shortchanged! The issue is a little complicated due to federalism issues I don't think the Federal government can impose its will on this issue it would have to indirectly pressure the states to make these changes like the Federal government did making a mandatory DUI violation a driver having an blood alcohol level content of .08%; the Feds did it by linking transportation funding to the states making the change thru their legislature - the leverage doesn't have to transportation funding it could be economic development money and other federal funding!


A good policy initiative would be to remove the federal government's variance in whether it pursues fighting police brutality and injustice in police departments across the nation. This vital work takes place in the Department of Justice when it takes place. The American people need to be protected from United State Attorney General's like Jeff Session that are notorious in their lack of caring about people whether it be immigrants that broke the law over twenty years ago to come to America but since then have been great workers in the nation's economy or people that are victims of police discrimination that were helped by consent decrees between their local police department and the DOJ which Attorney General Session's shut down. America needs to be protected against the yearly budget process where valuable departments like Community Relations Services and Community Orientated Policing Services are in danger of being eliminated under the budget axe because these department fight local police abuse across the nation and separate departments give the issue involved the high profile it deserves. To remedy this problem Washington needs to pass a law creating an agency in the Department of Justice where its head is a Deputy Attorney General, a confirmed post, the agency could be called something like The Police Abuse Prevention & The Community Orientated Policing Services Agency. Congress needs to give it the authority to bring lawsuits against local police departments that "don't have policies in place or enforce policies" that stop police abuse and discrimination and give the agency the authority to enter into consent decrees to remedy these problems and Congress should give state level attorney offices the authority to bring such Federal lawsuits and give Federal Judges that hear such cases the power if need be to replace the respective police commissioners. Congress doing this will go a long way to taking this issue out of the hands of Presidential administrations that may or may not really care about this problem; and, Congress will be achieving its duty to permanently protect these communities from their abusive police departments which getting the Federal courts involved will go a long way toward accomplishing!


There is a lot of bad and wrong policy ideas out there the country better be careful or it could end up creating additional problems. The Federal Government should not create a law requiring that if a police officer uses force the force used must be only necessary force for the current standard that the force used be reasonable is sufficient!
These cases like the George Floyd are clearly not reasonable. Necessary force is a very subjective thing I think if a police officer is legitimately trying to arrest a person and and that person is resisting and punching that officer in the face that officer has the right to punch the arrestee in the face until the punching threat against the police officer is over under fairness principles I am sure that many people would disagree they would say a Police officer should not strike an arrestee in the face because the arrestee could be really hurt. Raising the standard to "a necessary force standard" is unfair to police officers for this very reason it is too subjective. Though Congress may want to tighten the present standard somewhat it seems fair to me to say a police officer cannot fire a gun at a person unless that person possesses a firearm or the person fired at has the potential to inflict deadly force against another and has put another in actual danger. The first part of this standard would prohibit police officers from firing their gun at fleeing suspects and the second part of the definition would prohibit police officers from firing their gun against mentally ill or doped up or intoxicated people when they possess a knife or even a gun when no one is in danger of being hurt whether because of the distance away of other people or other people are behind objects that can protect them from gunfire.

Another bad idea is this national registry of police misconduct. First off, the crucial role of police officers is they need to be witnesses in cases to get convictions against serious and habitual criminals. You put police officers on the national registry and you have just severely damaged the credibility of that police witness, a good defense attorney will use that fact to impeach such a police witness! Many good and great police officers have misconduct incidences in their past one it can be from an unfair ruling many people say things and accuse police of things that are not fair they lie they spin things. Two, police officers are human they are emotional beings they can be provoked you can have an officer at a police scene where a person is mouthing off to that person and the officer loses his or her temper and says or does something it may not clearly rise to the level of a crime so it may be only a misconduct blemish on his or her record, it is unfair to tarnish the reputation of good police officers by giving them a scarlet letter that would be created by putting them on such a national registry. What Congress could do is protect police departments from all liability under circumstances where a police officer leaves employment with a police department and seeks employment with another police department or security organization and the latter organization inquires of the initial employer whether the job applicant had any incidence during his employment involving a problem with violence; this could avoid the scenario where people with a history of violence that do not have the character to be police officers and a prior job as a police officer clearly demonstrates this gets another job as a police officer because the new employer doesn't have that key knowledge!

One really colossal dumb idea is for the federal government to remove the "qualified immunity" doctrine for police officers; this doctrine stands for the proposition that "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". In practical terms what this means is that police officers have wide latitude to do their job and not get sued basically they can only get sued if they are clearly violating a law. It is extremely foolish to take away this legal protection for police officers because if Washington does this police are understandably going to be defensive and not aggressive at trying to stop crime in order to avoid being sued and members of the public that will be future victims of such criminals will pay the price. Further, good and talented people will not go into the law enforcement field for this very reason and society will be the loser; lawsuits can devastate a person even if they don't lose the case for the ordinary person to just pay the legal fees for a lawyer to represent them in the case would be a crushing financial blow. The American public needs to keep in mind that this "qualified immunity" doctrine doesn't stop victims from suing over wrongful police conduct to them and getting justly compensated they just sue the county the police officer is from. The good public policy here is to stop bad candidates for a law enforcement job from getting on the police force and just get bad police officers off the force; the country needs to keep the focus on what is important here!
 
that's a lot of babble crap
....there is not a major problem of police brutality or racism--plain and simple..the numbers and statistics say so
....the ROOT of the problem is black culture producing criminals at high rates..if you don't commit crime, your chances of being shot or killed by a cop are 0.00000000000000000000000000000001
 
It isn't racism when they beat their wives. It is just racism when they beat black people. Maybe there is a lesson in there somewhere. :afro:
 
It isn't racism when they beat their wives. It is just racism when they beat black people. Maybe there is a lesson in there somewhere. :afro:
..it's not even racism when the cops kill/etc blacks
Everything is racism when you are a racist Black. In their mind, the only thing that would NOT be racist would be to put them in charge of everything and have their say and way in everything. Eliminate rich white people and make it so they can live well to very well in nice homes with a lot of money for little or no work!

Anything less is racism!
 
In regards to the protest over Geroge Floyd and systematic racism

Let's get one thing clear, Jim-- -- -- NONE OF THIS MATTERS.

If anyone is idiot enough to think that massive protests are going to "change the culture" of America, they are an idiot. Things are the way they are because this is the way those in power WANT IT.

If you are stupid enough to think some protests are going to make the rich and powerful say: "Whoa. We're busted, we better fix this," you have another thing coming. They will let this burn itself out and nothing is going to change.

I guess you think all the black on black killing in Chicago, DC, etc., is going to change, too?

You think this is the first protest this world has seen? Look at the rioting and protests that have been going on forever in Syria, Venezuela, Palestine, China, etc.: when they finally have enough, they don't acquiesce, they crack down with martial law.

There won't be any "reform" here either. If anything, all these idiots have done is made cops madder and meaner, and brought us closer to martial law and anarchy.
 
In regards to the protest over Geroge Floyd and systematic racism, it is clear that "ordinary" Americans are rising to the occasion recognizing the times, that significant changes are needed in America now, but our "leaders" are not. America should be seeing it's leaders in Congress joining in bi-partisan groups to recommend specific pieces of legislation to solve parts of this problem, of course there is no real hope such proposals will become law in the near future with the present President whose obvious top priority is not alienating his political base and getting reelected but that shouldn't matter to good patriotic Congressional leaders of both parties who care about this serious national problem because good bi-partisan proposals would be laying the groundwork to get such bills passed into laws at a later time. Those bills would be valuable tools for individuals and groups advocating for solutions to these problems they would help these advocates stir up public pressure on members of Congress and the President to enact these bills into laws. What America is seeing from our leaders is politicization of this issue, the Democrat Party is putting together a big committee to come up with specific policy proposals that can become the Democrat Party platform on this subject: does anyone really think that this committee with the body of proposals it will likely produce if such were put into a bill and the bill passed into law would be good for America? It would make things dramatically worse the country doesn't need efforts that pander to anger, self promotion and other nefarious things it needs efforts that do right by everyone's interests!

There is a lot of good proposals being bantered around our society. National legislation requiring better and mandatory training in the use of force for police departments is a good one; I was shocked and embarrassed for my region Philadelphia where during a protest for Mr. Floyd a Philly police officer in taking a protester into custody struck the peaceful protester in the head with a baton and when that protester was on the ground a police officer put and kept his knee on the protesters head as the protester was handcuffed. There should be bright line rules that officers follow no baton strikes to the head, to the legs and body area okay and if worse comes to worse the collar bone area but not to the head the head is too fragile it is too easy to cripple or kill someone with a baton strike to the head. There should be bright line rules of no police knee to the head, neck or spine of a person being arrested when they are on the ground it is too easy to damage that person's spine or impair the person's ability to breath.

Another good proposal is passing a national law banning police choke holds to subdue, control or arrest a person; how many people have to die by this means at the hands of the police before our society recognizes it is unjust and unnecessary behavior by police. Of course a good policy would be a National law requiring all police departments to document from a demographic and "reasons for" standpoint all their car stops and police stops of people on the street to ensure that the police officers involved are not doing racial profiling. This overall police brutality issue, calls for a national law that in effect bands police union collective bargaining agreements from obstructing police management from removing violent police officers from the department; time and again the public hears about police officers getting their job back from police review panels or arbitrators where it is morally indefensible to put the person in question back in uniform. The national law could give police management the power, impenetrable by collective bargaining agreements, that where a police officer used excessive force and the victim suffered serious bodily injury or died the police officer can be fired and where a police officer used excessive force on three separate occasions over a five year period that police officer can be fired; the law shall provide that these cases are not to go to police review boards and/or arbitrators the fired police officer only has the write to bring a wrongful termination lawsuit in such a case and if the officer wins the case there is to be no punitive damages or pain and suffering damages the officer only gets reinstatement, back pay and legal fees! Local county officials cannot be trusted to negotiate these provisions into police contracts because police unions are too powerful, they will bock such provisions.


Another good proposal is passing a national law requiring all states to take the jurisdiction of investigating and prosecuting police shootings out of the local District attorney's offices hands it should be under the sole jurisdiction of the respective state's Attorney General's Office; if it is left in the local District Attorney Office's jurisdiction there exist too many obstacles to getting justice. In most counties, local prosecutors and local police officers are good friends because they work together on so many criminal cases and most local District Attorneys have to run for office so they need union support and police union support is often vital in getting all union support and local power brokers which a District Attorney needs support from to win re-election care about public safety and keeping order, justice in a police shooting is often a far lesser priority for them so seeing justice done in police shootings often gets shortchanged! The issue is a little complicated due to federalism issues I don't think the Federal government can impose its will on this issue it would have to indirectly pressure the states to make these changes like the Federal government did making a mandatory DUI violation a driver having an blood alcohol level content of .08%; the Feds did it by linking transportation funding to the states making the change thru their legislature - the leverage doesn't have to transportation funding it could be economic development money and other federal funding!


A good policy initiative would be to remove the federal government's variance in whether it pursues fighting police brutality and injustice in police departments across the nation. This vital work takes place in the Department of Justice when it takes place. The American people need to be protected from United State Attorney General's like Jeff Session that are notorious in their lack of caring about people whether it be immigrants that broke the law over twenty years ago to come to America but since then have been great workers in the nation's economy or people that are victims of police discrimination that were helped by consent decrees between their local police department and the DOJ which Attorney General Session's shut down. America needs to be protected against the yearly budget process where valuable departments like Community Relations Services and Community Orientated Policing Services are in danger of being eliminated under the budget axe because these department fight local police abuse across the nation and separate departments give the issue involved the high profile it deserves. To remedy this problem Washington needs to pass a law creating an agency in the Department of Justice where its head is a Deputy Attorney General, a confirmed post, the agency could be called something like The Police Abuse Prevention & The Community Orientated Policing Services Agency. Congress needs to give it the authority to bring lawsuits against local police departments that "don't have policies in place or enforce policies" that stop police abuse and discrimination and give the agency the authority to enter into consent decrees to remedy these problems and Congress should give state level attorney offices the authority to bring such Federal lawsuits and give Federal Judges that hear such cases the power if need be to replace the respective police commissioners. Congress doing this will go a long way to taking this issue out of the hands of Presidential administrations that may or may not really care about this problem; and, Congress will be achieving its duty to permanently protect these communities from their abusive police departments which getting the Federal courts involved will go a long way toward accomplishing!


There is a lot of bad and wrong policy ideas out there the country better be careful or it could end up creating additional problems. The Federal Government should not create a law requiring that if a police officer uses force the force used must be only necessary force for the current standard that the force used be reasonable is sufficient!
These cases like the George Floyd are clearly not reasonable. Necessary force is a very subjective thing I think if a police officer is legitimately trying to arrest a person and and that person is resisting and punching that officer in the face that officer has the right to punch the arrestee in the face until the punching threat against the police officer is over under fairness principles I am sure that many people would disagree they would say a Police officer should not strike an arrestee in the face because the arrestee could be really hurt. Raising the standard to "a necessary force standard" is unfair to police officers for this very reason it is too subjective. Though Congress may want to tighten the present standard somewhat it seems fair to me to say a police officer cannot fire a gun at a person unless that person possesses a firearm or the person fired at has the potential to inflict deadly force against another and has put another in actual danger. The first part of this standard would prohibit police officers from firing their gun at fleeing suspects and the second part of the definition would prohibit police officers from firing their gun against mentally ill or doped up or intoxicated people when they possess a knife or even a gun when no one is in danger of being hurt whether because of the distance away of other people or other people are behind objects that can protect them from gunfire.

Another bad idea is this national registry of police misconduct. First off, the crucial role of police officers is they need to be witnesses in cases to get convictions against serious and habitual criminals. You put police officers on the national registry and you have just severely damaged the credibility of that police witness, a good defense attorney will use that fact to impeach such a police witness! Many good and great police officers have misconduct incidences in their past one it can be from an unfair ruling many people say things and accuse police of things that are not fair they lie they spin things. Two, police officers are human they are emotional beings they can be provoked you can have an officer at a police scene where a person is mouthing off to that person and the officer loses his or her temper and says or does something it may not clearly rise to the level of a crime so it may be only a misconduct blemish on his or her record, it is unfair to tarnish the reputation of good police officers by giving them a scarlet letter that would be created by putting them on such a national registry. What Congress could do is protect police departments from all liability under circumstances where a police officer leaves employment with a police department and seeks employment with another police department or security organization and the latter organization inquires of the initial employer whether the job applicant had any incidence during his employment involving a problem with violence; this could avoid the scenario where people with a history of violence that do not have the character to be police officers and a prior job as a police officer clearly demonstrates this gets another job as a police officer because the new employer doesn't have that key knowledge!

One really colossal dumb idea is for the federal government to remove the "qualified immunity" doctrine for police officers; this doctrine stands for the proposition that "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". In practical terms what this means is that police officers have wide latitude to do their job and not get sued basically they can only get sued if they are clearly violating a law. It is extremely foolish to take away this legal protection for police officers because if Washington does this police are understandably going to be defensive and not aggressive at trying to stop crime in order to avoid being sued and members of the public that will be future victims of such criminals will pay the price. Further, good and talented people will not go into the law enforcement field for this very reason and society will be the loser; lawsuits can devastate a person even if they don't lose the case for the ordinary person to just pay the legal fees for a lawyer to represent them in the case would be a crushing financial blow. The American public needs to keep in mind that this "qualified immunity" doctrine doesn't stop victims from suing over wrongful police conduct to them and getting justly compensated they just sue the county the police officer is from. The good public policy here is to stop bad candidates for a law enforcement job from getting on the police force and just get bad police officers off the force; the country needs to keep the focus on what is important here!
I have a solution for blacks.....STOP BREAKING THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
In regards to the protest over Geroge Floyd and systematic racism, it is clear that "ordinary" Americans are rising to the occasion recognizing the times, that significant changes are needed in America now, but our "leaders" are not. America should be seeing it's leaders in Congress joining in bi-partisan groups to recommend specific pieces of legislation to solve parts of this problem, of course there is no real hope such proposals will become law in the near future with the present President whose obvious top priority is not alienating his political base and getting reelected but that shouldn't matter to good patriotic Congressional leaders of both parties who care about this serious national problem because good bi-partisan proposals would be laying the groundwork to get such bills passed into laws at a later time. Those bills would be valuable tools for individuals and groups advocating for solutions to these problems they would help these advocates stir up public pressure on members of Congress and the President to enact these bills into laws. What America is seeing from our leaders is politicization of this issue, the Democrat Party is putting together a big committee to come up with specific policy proposals that can become the Democrat Party platform on this subject: does anyone really think that this committee with the body of proposals it will likely produce if such were put into a bill and the bill passed into law would be good for America? It would make things dramatically worse the country doesn't need efforts that pander to anger, self promotion and other nefarious things it needs efforts that do right by everyone's interests!

There is a lot of good proposals being bantered around our society. National legislation requiring better and mandatory training in the use of force for police departments is a good one; I was shocked and embarrassed for my region Philadelphia where during a protest for Mr. Floyd a Philly police officer in taking a protester into custody struck the peaceful protester in the head with a baton and when that protester was on the ground a police officer put and kept his knee on the protesters head as the protester was handcuffed. There should be bright line rules that officers follow no baton strikes to the head, to the legs and body area okay and if worse comes to worse the collar bone area but not to the head the head is too fragile it is too easy to cripple or kill someone with a baton strike to the head. There should be bright line rules of no police knee to the head, neck or spine of a person being arrested when they are on the ground it is too easy to damage that person's spine or impair the person's ability to breath.

Another good proposal is passing a national law banning police choke holds to subdue, control or arrest a person; how many people have to die by this means at the hands of the police before our society recognizes it is unjust and unnecessary behavior by police. Of course a good policy would be a National law requiring all police departments to document from a demographic and "reasons for" standpoint all their car stops and police stops of people on the street to ensure that the police officers involved are not doing racial profiling. This overall police brutality issue, calls for a national law that in effect bands police union collective bargaining agreements from obstructing police management from removing violent police officers from the department; time and again the public hears about police officers getting their job back from police review panels or arbitrators where it is morally indefensible to put the person in question back in uniform. The national law could give police management the power, impenetrable by collective bargaining agreements, that where a police officer used excessive force and the victim suffered serious bodily injury or died the police officer can be fired and where a police officer used excessive force on three separate occasions over a five year period that police officer can be fired; the law shall provide that these cases are not to go to police review boards and/or arbitrators the fired police officer only has the write to bring a wrongful termination lawsuit in such a case and if the officer wins the case there is to be no punitive damages or pain and suffering damages the officer only gets reinstatement, back pay and legal fees! Local county officials cannot be trusted to negotiate these provisions into police contracts because police unions are too powerful, they will bock such provisions.


Another good proposal is passing a national law requiring all states to take the jurisdiction of investigating and prosecuting police shootings out of the local District attorney's offices hands it should be under the sole jurisdiction of the respective state's Attorney General's Office; if it is left in the local District Attorney Office's jurisdiction there exist too many obstacles to getting justice. In most counties, local prosecutors and local police officers are good friends because they work together on so many criminal cases and most local District Attorneys have to run for office so they need union support and police union support is often vital in getting all union support and local power brokers which a District Attorney needs support from to win re-election care about public safety and keeping order, justice in a police shooting is often a far lesser priority for them so seeing justice done in police shootings often gets shortchanged! The issue is a little complicated due to federalism issues I don't think the Federal government can impose its will on this issue it would have to indirectly pressure the states to make these changes like the Federal government did making a mandatory DUI violation a driver having an blood alcohol level content of .08%; the Feds did it by linking transportation funding to the states making the change thru their legislature - the leverage doesn't have to transportation funding it could be economic development money and other federal funding!


A good policy initiative would be to remove the federal government's variance in whether it pursues fighting police brutality and injustice in police departments across the nation. This vital work takes place in the Department of Justice when it takes place. The American people need to be protected from United State Attorney General's like Jeff Session that are notorious in their lack of caring about people whether it be immigrants that broke the law over twenty years ago to come to America but since then have been great workers in the nation's economy or people that are victims of police discrimination that were helped by consent decrees between their local police department and the DOJ which Attorney General Session's shut down. America needs to be protected against the yearly budget process where valuable departments like Community Relations Services and Community Orientated Policing Services are in danger of being eliminated under the budget axe because these department fight local police abuse across the nation and separate departments give the issue involved the high profile it deserves. To remedy this problem Washington needs to pass a law creating an agency in the Department of Justice where its head is a Deputy Attorney General, a confirmed post, the agency could be called something like The Police Abuse Prevention & The Community Orientated Policing Services Agency. Congress needs to give it the authority to bring lawsuits against local police departments that "don't have policies in place or enforce policies" that stop police abuse and discrimination and give the agency the authority to enter into consent decrees to remedy these problems and Congress should give state level attorney offices the authority to bring such Federal lawsuits and give Federal Judges that hear such cases the power if need be to replace the respective police commissioners. Congress doing this will go a long way to taking this issue out of the hands of Presidential administrations that may or may not really care about this problem; and, Congress will be achieving its duty to permanently protect these communities from their abusive police departments which getting the Federal courts involved will go a long way toward accomplishing!


There is a lot of bad and wrong policy ideas out there the country better be careful or it could end up creating additional problems. The Federal Government should not create a law requiring that if a police officer uses force the force used must be only necessary force for the current standard that the force used be reasonable is sufficient!
These cases like the George Floyd are clearly not reasonable. Necessary force is a very subjective thing I think if a police officer is legitimately trying to arrest a person and and that person is resisting and punching that officer in the face that officer has the right to punch the arrestee in the face until the punching threat against the police officer is over under fairness principles I am sure that many people would disagree they would say a Police officer should not strike an arrestee in the face because the arrestee could be really hurt. Raising the standard to "a necessary force standard" is unfair to police officers for this very reason it is too subjective. Though Congress may want to tighten the present standard somewhat it seems fair to me to say a police officer cannot fire a gun at a person unless that person possesses a firearm or the person fired at has the potential to inflict deadly force against another and has put another in actual danger. The first part of this standard would prohibit police officers from firing their gun at fleeing suspects and the second part of the definition would prohibit police officers from firing their gun against mentally ill or doped up or intoxicated people when they possess a knife or even a gun when no one is in danger of being hurt whether because of the distance away of other people or other people are behind objects that can protect them from gunfire.

Another bad idea is this national registry of police misconduct. First off, the crucial role of police officers is they need to be witnesses in cases to get convictions against serious and habitual criminals. You put police officers on the national registry and you have just severely damaged the credibility of that police witness, a good defense attorney will use that fact to impeach such a police witness! Many good and great police officers have misconduct incidences in their past one it can be from an unfair ruling many people say things and accuse police of things that are not fair they lie they spin things. Two, police officers are human they are emotional beings they can be provoked you can have an officer at a police scene where a person is mouthing off to that person and the officer loses his or her temper and says or does something it may not clearly rise to the level of a crime so it may be only a misconduct blemish on his or her record, it is unfair to tarnish the reputation of good police officers by giving them a scarlet letter that would be created by putting them on such a national registry. What Congress could do is protect police departments from all liability under circumstances where a police officer leaves employment with a police department and seeks employment with another police department or security organization and the latter organization inquires of the initial employer whether the job applicant had any incidence during his employment involving a problem with violence; this could avoid the scenario where people with a history of violence that do not have the character to be police officers and a prior job as a police officer clearly demonstrates this gets another job as a police officer because the new employer doesn't have that key knowledge!

One really colossal dumb idea is for the federal government to remove the "qualified immunity" doctrine for police officers; this doctrine stands for the proposition that "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". In practical terms what this means is that police officers have wide latitude to do their job and not get sued basically they can only get sued if they are clearly violating a law. It is extremely foolish to take away this legal protection for police officers because if Washington does this police are understandably going to be defensive and not aggressive at trying to stop crime in order to avoid being sued and members of the public that will be future victims of such criminals will pay the price. Further, good and talented people will not go into the law enforcement field for this very reason and society will be the loser; lawsuits can devastate a person even if they don't lose the case for the ordinary person to just pay the legal fees for a lawyer to represent them in the case would be a crushing financial blow. The American public needs to keep in mind that this "qualified immunity" doctrine doesn't stop victims from suing over wrongful police conduct to them and getting justly compensated they just sue the county the police officer is from. The good public policy here is to stop bad candidates for a law enforcement job from getting on the police force and just get bad police officers off the force; the country needs to keep the focus on what is important here!
Step #1, stop committing so much crime
 
In regards to the protest over Geroge Floyd and systematic racism, it is clear that "ordinary" Americans are rising to the occasion recognizing the times, that significant changes are needed in America now, but our "leaders" are not. America should be seeing it's leaders in Congress joining in bi-partisan groups to recommend specific pieces of legislation to solve parts of this problem, of course there is no real hope such proposals will become law in the near future with the present President whose obvious top priority is not alienating his political base and getting reelected but that shouldn't matter to good patriotic Congressional leaders of both parties who care about this serious national problem because good bi-partisan proposals would be laying the groundwork to get such bills passed into laws at a later time. Those bills would be valuable tools for individuals and groups advocating for solutions to these problems they would help these advocates stir up public pressure on members of Congress and the President to enact these bills into laws. What America is seeing from our leaders is politicization of this issue, the Democrat Party is putting together a big committee to come up with specific policy proposals that can become the Democrat Party platform on this subject: does anyone really think that this committee with the body of proposals it will likely produce if such were put into a bill and the bill passed into law would be good for America? It would make things dramatically worse the country doesn't need efforts that pander to anger, self promotion and other nefarious things it needs efforts that do right by everyone's interests!

There is a lot of good proposals being bantered around our society. National legislation requiring better and mandatory training in the use of force for police departments is a good one; I was shocked and embarrassed for my region Philadelphia where during a protest for Mr. Floyd a Philly police officer in taking a protester into custody struck the peaceful protester in the head with a baton and when that protester was on the ground a police officer put and kept his knee on the protesters head as the protester was handcuffed. There should be bright line rules that officers follow no baton strikes to the head, to the legs and body area okay and if worse comes to worse the collar bone area but not to the head the head is too fragile it is too easy to cripple or kill someone with a baton strike to the head. There should be bright line rules of no police knee to the head, neck or spine of a person being arrested when they are on the ground it is too easy to damage that person's spine or impair the person's ability to breath.

Another good proposal is passing a national law banning police choke holds to subdue, control or arrest a person; how many people have to die by this means at the hands of the police before our society recognizes it is unjust and unnecessary behavior by police. Of course a good policy would be a National law requiring all police departments to document from a demographic and "reasons for" standpoint all their car stops and police stops of people on the street to ensure that the police officers involved are not doing racial profiling. This overall police brutality issue, calls for a national law that in effect bands police union collective bargaining agreements from obstructing police management from removing violent police officers from the department; time and again the public hears about police officers getting their job back from police review panels or arbitrators where it is morally indefensible to put the person in question back in uniform. The national law could give police management the power, impenetrable by collective bargaining agreements, that where a police officer used excessive force and the victim suffered serious bodily injury or died the police officer can be fired and where a police officer used excessive force on three separate occasions over a five year period that police officer can be fired; the law shall provide that these cases are not to go to police review boards and/or arbitrators the fired police officer only has the write to bring a wrongful termination lawsuit in such a case and if the officer wins the case there is to be no punitive damages or pain and suffering damages the officer only gets reinstatement, back pay and legal fees! Local county officials cannot be trusted to negotiate these provisions into police contracts because police unions are too powerful, they will bock such provisions.


Another good proposal is passing a national law requiring all states to take the jurisdiction of investigating and prosecuting police shootings out of the local District attorney's offices hands it should be under the sole jurisdiction of the respective state's Attorney General's Office; if it is left in the local District Attorney Office's jurisdiction there exist too many obstacles to getting justice. In most counties, local prosecutors and local police officers are good friends because they work together on so many criminal cases and most local District Attorneys have to run for office so they need union support and police union support is often vital in getting all union support and local power brokers which a District Attorney needs support from to win re-election care about public safety and keeping order, justice in a police shooting is often a far lesser priority for them so seeing justice done in police shootings often gets shortchanged! The issue is a little complicated due to federalism issues I don't think the Federal government can impose its will on this issue it would have to indirectly pressure the states to make these changes like the Federal government did making a mandatory DUI violation a driver having an blood alcohol level content of .08%; the Feds did it by linking transportation funding to the states making the change thru their legislature - the leverage doesn't have to transportation funding it could be economic development money and other federal funding!


A good policy initiative would be to remove the federal government's variance in whether it pursues fighting police brutality and injustice in police departments across the nation. This vital work takes place in the Department of Justice when it takes place. The American people need to be protected from United State Attorney General's like Jeff Session that are notorious in their lack of caring about people whether it be immigrants that broke the law over twenty years ago to come to America but since then have been great workers in the nation's economy or people that are victims of police discrimination that were helped by consent decrees between their local police department and the DOJ which Attorney General Session's shut down. America needs to be protected against the yearly budget process where valuable departments like Community Relations Services and Community Orientated Policing Services are in danger of being eliminated under the budget axe because these department fight local police abuse across the nation and separate departments give the issue involved the high profile it deserves. To remedy this problem Washington needs to pass a law creating an agency in the Department of Justice where its head is a Deputy Attorney General, a confirmed post, the agency could be called something like The Police Abuse Prevention & The Community Orientated Policing Services Agency. Congress needs to give it the authority to bring lawsuits against local police departments that "don't have policies in place or enforce policies" that stop police abuse and discrimination and give the agency the authority to enter into consent decrees to remedy these problems and Congress should give state level attorney offices the authority to bring such Federal lawsuits and give Federal Judges that hear such cases the power if need be to replace the respective police commissioners. Congress doing this will go a long way to taking this issue out of the hands of Presidential administrations that may or may not really care about this problem; and, Congress will be achieving its duty to permanently protect these communities from their abusive police departments which getting the Federal courts involved will go a long way toward accomplishing!


There is a lot of bad and wrong policy ideas out there the country better be careful or it could end up creating additional problems. The Federal Government should not create a law requiring that if a police officer uses force the force used must be only necessary force for the current standard that the force used be reasonable is sufficient!
These cases like the George Floyd are clearly not reasonable. Necessary force is a very subjective thing I think if a police officer is legitimately trying to arrest a person and and that person is resisting and punching that officer in the face that officer has the right to punch the arrestee in the face until the punching threat against the police officer is over under fairness principles I am sure that many people would disagree they would say a Police officer should not strike an arrestee in the face because the arrestee could be really hurt. Raising the standard to "a necessary force standard" is unfair to police officers for this very reason it is too subjective. Though Congress may want to tighten the present standard somewhat it seems fair to me to say a police officer cannot fire a gun at a person unless that person possesses a firearm or the person fired at has the potential to inflict deadly force against another and has put another in actual danger. The first part of this standard would prohibit police officers from firing their gun at fleeing suspects and the second part of the definition would prohibit police officers from firing their gun against mentally ill or doped up or intoxicated people when they possess a knife or even a gun when no one is in danger of being hurt whether because of the distance away of other people or other people are behind objects that can protect them from gunfire.

Another bad idea is this national registry of police misconduct. First off, the crucial role of police officers is they need to be witnesses in cases to get convictions against serious and habitual criminals. You put police officers on the national registry and you have just severely damaged the credibility of that police witness, a good defense attorney will use that fact to impeach such a police witness! Many good and great police officers have misconduct incidences in their past one it can be from an unfair ruling many people say things and accuse police of things that are not fair they lie they spin things. Two, police officers are human they are emotional beings they can be provoked you can have an officer at a police scene where a person is mouthing off to that person and the officer loses his or her temper and says or does something it may not clearly rise to the level of a crime so it may be only a misconduct blemish on his or her record, it is unfair to tarnish the reputation of good police officers by giving them a scarlet letter that would be created by putting them on such a national registry. What Congress could do is protect police departments from all liability under circumstances where a police officer leaves employment with a police department and seeks employment with another police department or security organization and the latter organization inquires of the initial employer whether the job applicant had any incidence during his employment involving a problem with violence; this could avoid the scenario where people with a history of violence that do not have the character to be police officers and a prior job as a police officer clearly demonstrates this gets another job as a police officer because the new employer doesn't have that key knowledge!

One really colossal dumb idea is for the federal government to remove the "qualified immunity" doctrine for police officers; this doctrine stands for the proposition that "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". In practical terms what this means is that police officers have wide latitude to do their job and not get sued basically they can only get sued if they are clearly violating a law. It is extremely foolish to take away this legal protection for police officers because if Washington does this police are understandably going to be defensive and not aggressive at trying to stop crime in order to avoid being sued and members of the public that will be future victims of such criminals will pay the price. Further, good and talented people will not go into the law enforcement field for this very reason and society will be the loser; lawsuits can devastate a person even if they don't lose the case for the ordinary person to just pay the legal fees for a lawyer to represent them in the case would be a crushing financial blow. The American public needs to keep in mind that this "qualified immunity" doctrine doesn't stop victims from suing over wrongful police conduct to them and getting justly compensated they just sue the county the police officer is from. The good public policy here is to stop bad candidates for a law enforcement job from getting on the police force and just get bad police officers off the force; the country needs to keep the focus on what is important here!
YOu do realize that this is exactly why liberals in government have riots and looting, so people like you can look to them to save the day. But if everyone legally here as black, white, brown and yellow, could put their differences aside and work together instead of mistreating by robbing, burning and murdering, we wouldnt need bullshit legislation. Back in the day, communities would spring up where all people could leave their doors open, have block parties, but those damn Democrats who just couldnt leave happy people alone had to fuck with everyone, diversify everyone, so now no one trusts anyone else. Until people realize this the Demoncraps are going to keep pushing the US apart.

United we stand, divided we fall, used to mean something...
 
In regards to the protest over Geroge Floyd and systematic racism, it is clear that "ordinary" Americans are rising to the occasion recognizing the times, that significant changes are needed in America now, but our "leaders" are not. America should be seeing it's leaders in Congress joining in bi-partisan groups to recommend specific pieces of legislation to solve parts of this problem, of course there is no real hope such proposals will become law in the near future with the present President whose obvious top priority is not alienating his political base and getting reelected but that shouldn't matter to good patriotic Congressional leaders of both parties who care about this serious national problem because good bi-partisan proposals would be laying the groundwork to get such bills passed into laws at a later time. Those bills would be valuable tools for individuals and groups advocating for solutions to these problems they would help these advocates stir up public pressure on members of Congress and the President to enact these bills into laws. What America is seeing from our leaders is politicization of this issue, the Democrat Party is putting together a big committee to come up with specific policy proposals that can become the Democrat Party platform on this subject: does anyone really think that this committee with the body of proposals it will likely produce if such were put into a bill and the bill passed into law would be good for America? It would make things dramatically worse the country doesn't need efforts that pander to anger, self promotion and other nefarious things it needs efforts that do right by everyone's interests!

There is a lot of good proposals being bantered around our society. National legislation requiring better and mandatory training in the use of force for police departments is a good one; I was shocked and embarrassed for my region Philadelphia where during a protest for Mr. Floyd a Philly police officer in taking a protester into custody struck the peaceful protester in the head with a baton and when that protester was on the ground a police officer put and kept his knee on the protesters head as the protester was handcuffed. There should be bright line rules that officers follow no baton strikes to the head, to the legs and body area okay and if worse comes to worse the collar bone area but not to the head the head is too fragile it is too easy to cripple or kill someone with a baton strike to the head. There should be bright line rules of no police knee to the head, neck or spine of a person being arrested when they are on the ground it is too easy to damage that person's spine or impair the person's ability to breath.

Another good proposal is passing a national law banning police choke holds to subdue, control or arrest a person; how many people have to die by this means at the hands of the police before our society recognizes it is unjust and unnecessary behavior by police. Of course a good policy would be a National law requiring all police departments to document from a demographic and "reasons for" standpoint all their car stops and police stops of people on the street to ensure that the police officers involved are not doing racial profiling. This overall police brutality issue, calls for a national law that in effect bands police union collective bargaining agreements from obstructing police management from removing violent police officers from the department; time and again the public hears about police officers getting their job back from police review panels or arbitrators where it is morally indefensible to put the person in question back in uniform. The national law could give police management the power, impenetrable by collective bargaining agreements, that where a police officer used excessive force and the victim suffered serious bodily injury or died the police officer can be fired and where a police officer used excessive force on three separate occasions over a five year period that police officer can be fired; the law shall provide that these cases are not to go to police review boards and/or arbitrators the fired police officer only has the write to bring a wrongful termination lawsuit in such a case and if the officer wins the case there is to be no punitive damages or pain and suffering damages the officer only gets reinstatement, back pay and legal fees! Local county officials cannot be trusted to negotiate these provisions into police contracts because police unions are too powerful, they will bock such provisions.


Another good proposal is passing a national law requiring all states to take the jurisdiction of investigating and prosecuting police shootings out of the local District attorney's offices hands it should be under the sole jurisdiction of the respective state's Attorney General's Office; if it is left in the local District Attorney Office's jurisdiction there exist too many obstacles to getting justice. In most counties, local prosecutors and local police officers are good friends because they work together on so many criminal cases and most local District Attorneys have to run for office so they need union support and police union support is often vital in getting all union support and local power brokers which a District Attorney needs support from to win re-election care about public safety and keeping order, justice in a police shooting is often a far lesser priority for them so seeing justice done in police shootings often gets shortchanged! The issue is a little complicated due to federalism issues I don't think the Federal government can impose its will on this issue it would have to indirectly pressure the states to make these changes like the Federal government did making a mandatory DUI violation a driver having an blood alcohol level content of .08%; the Feds did it by linking transportation funding to the states making the change thru their legislature - the leverage doesn't have to transportation funding it could be economic development money and other federal funding!


A good policy initiative would be to remove the federal government's variance in whether it pursues fighting police brutality and injustice in police departments across the nation. This vital work takes place in the Department of Justice when it takes place. The American people need to be protected from United State Attorney General's like Jeff Session that are notorious in their lack of caring about people whether it be immigrants that broke the law over twenty years ago to come to America but since then have been great workers in the nation's economy or people that are victims of police discrimination that were helped by consent decrees between their local police department and the DOJ which Attorney General Session's shut down. America needs to be protected against the yearly budget process where valuable departments like Community Relations Services and Community Orientated Policing Services are in danger of being eliminated under the budget axe because these department fight local police abuse across the nation and separate departments give the issue involved the high profile it deserves. To remedy this problem Washington needs to pass a law creating an agency in the Department of Justice where its head is a Deputy Attorney General, a confirmed post, the agency could be called something like The Police Abuse Prevention & The Community Orientated Policing Services Agency. Congress needs to give it the authority to bring lawsuits against local police departments that "don't have policies in place or enforce policies" that stop police abuse and discrimination and give the agency the authority to enter into consent decrees to remedy these problems and Congress should give state level attorney offices the authority to bring such Federal lawsuits and give Federal Judges that hear such cases the power if need be to replace the respective police commissioners. Congress doing this will go a long way to taking this issue out of the hands of Presidential administrations that may or may not really care about this problem; and, Congress will be achieving its duty to permanently protect these communities from their abusive police departments which getting the Federal courts involved will go a long way toward accomplishing!


There is a lot of bad and wrong policy ideas out there the country better be careful or it could end up creating additional problems. The Federal Government should not create a law requiring that if a police officer uses force the force used must be only necessary force for the current standard that the force used be reasonable is sufficient!
These cases like the George Floyd are clearly not reasonable. Necessary force is a very subjective thing I think if a police officer is legitimately trying to arrest a person and and that person is resisting and punching that officer in the face that officer has the right to punch the arrestee in the face until the punching threat against the police officer is over under fairness principles I am sure that many people would disagree they would say a Police officer should not strike an arrestee in the face because the arrestee could be really hurt. Raising the standard to "a necessary force standard" is unfair to police officers for this very reason it is too subjective. Though Congress may want to tighten the present standard somewhat it seems fair to me to say a police officer cannot fire a gun at a person unless that person possesses a firearm or the person fired at has the potential to inflict deadly force against another and has put another in actual danger. The first part of this standard would prohibit police officers from firing their gun at fleeing suspects and the second part of the definition would prohibit police officers from firing their gun against mentally ill or doped up or intoxicated people when they possess a knife or even a gun when no one is in danger of being hurt whether because of the distance away of other people or other people are behind objects that can protect them from gunfire.

Another bad idea is this national registry of police misconduct. First off, the crucial role of police officers is they need to be witnesses in cases to get convictions against serious and habitual criminals. You put police officers on the national registry and you have just severely damaged the credibility of that police witness, a good defense attorney will use that fact to impeach such a police witness! Many good and great police officers have misconduct incidences in their past one it can be from an unfair ruling many people say things and accuse police of things that are not fair they lie they spin things. Two, police officers are human they are emotional beings they can be provoked you can have an officer at a police scene where a person is mouthing off to that person and the officer loses his or her temper and says or does something it may not clearly rise to the level of a crime so it may be only a misconduct blemish on his or her record, it is unfair to tarnish the reputation of good police officers by giving them a scarlet letter that would be created by putting them on such a national registry. What Congress could do is protect police departments from all liability under circumstances where a police officer leaves employment with a police department and seeks employment with another police department or security organization and the latter organization inquires of the initial employer whether the job applicant had any incidence during his employment involving a problem with violence; this could avoid the scenario where people with a history of violence that do not have the character to be police officers and a prior job as a police officer clearly demonstrates this gets another job as a police officer because the new employer doesn't have that key knowledge!

One really colossal dumb idea is for the federal government to remove the "qualified immunity" doctrine for police officers; this doctrine stands for the proposition that "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". In practical terms what this means is that police officers have wide latitude to do their job and not get sued basically they can only get sued if they are clearly violating a law. It is extremely foolish to take away this legal protection for police officers because if Washington does this police are understandably going to be defensive and not aggressive at trying to stop crime in order to avoid being sued and members of the public that will be future victims of such criminals will pay the price. Further, good and talented people will not go into the law enforcement field for this very reason and society will be the loser; lawsuits can devastate a person even if they don't lose the case for the ordinary person to just pay the legal fees for a lawyer to represent them in the case would be a crushing financial blow. The American public needs to keep in mind that this "qualified immunity" doctrine doesn't stop victims from suing over wrongful police conduct to them and getting justly compensated they just sue the county the police officer is from. The good public policy here is to stop bad candidates for a law enforcement job from getting on the police force and just get bad police officers off the force; the country needs to keep the focus on what is important here!
The statistic do not show systemic racism.
These riots are 100% political for the Nov election.
The Dem Pundits and Politicians are exploiting the hate and ignorance of the Dem Voters.
 

Forum List

Back
Top