We already have this for rural county sheriffs.
We vote for Sheriff in LA County too. It should go for the deputies too.
Sounds like the path to a million George Zimmermans.
You think George Zimmerman’s neighborhood elects him?
Also, how is that different or worse than the status quo?
This guy gets to be a cop now for sure. Maybe the people on his block know better than to vote for him.
A bedrock principle of modern western democracy is civilian control of the military and police. In the US, the generals and national cops report to POTUS, the police chiefs report to a mayor or governor. This breaks down somewhat with sheriffs (who are elected), and special district cops (who report to appointed civilians).
I’m not suggesting this as a “proposal”… so I’m not going to “debate” it. And I’d love not to have to hear how some fool on the interwebs pretending they are a Mad-Men guru feels it’d poll. Please. It’s a thought experiment.
In magical though experiment land, they wouldn’t have police.
Instead, in what civil society considered to be the proper venues, there would be pairs of folks wandering around. One member of the pair would be a professional, he wanders around like this as his job. The other would not be a pro. Instead, they would be a member of civil society, local to a small area being wandered, and part of a broad based rotation of folks who constantly took turns covering shifts, but only occasionally.
The reason they were wandering around is that civil society has delegated them to help keep the peace. Here’s the trick: both members of the wandering team gotta agree on what they do. Civilian control at the atomic level.
Yes, absolutely. Who would your Nextdoor neighborhood elect?
Whether it’s worse or not depends on how much authority these community patrols have and what sort of oversight there is. I’d be terrified of giving wealthy suburbs any more policing autonomy than they already have.
They already have complete autonomy and they hire cops to do exactly what you’re afraid of.
And no, my block would not elect George Zimmerman.
Yeah, that seems like a fine idea - in some cases for sure. The needs would depend on the need for policing. In a lot of places you might not need that “pro” and also I don’t really care whether the “amateur” gets paid or not. If you need to have some pay to get people to do their stint, then pay them. In a lot of places you might just have full-time permanent pros with slightly greater areas that are there to back-up the amateurs when called. But, they could also be elected or at least recallable by the areas they serve.
The police should never be an outside occupying force. @zikzak, you’re never going to fix the fact that a lot of people suck, but you can fix some things.
Most people on ND don’t talk about politics and the Trumpkins are definitely not a silent minority. My neighborhood will probably go about 20% for the Trump/Zimmerman ticket. At any rate, Tamir Rice’s neighborhood should get to pick their cops.
And, do I have to come up with the entire process here or the alternative is a million Zimmermans?
It’s not like just because I didn’t specifically say there would be oversight and that the Bill of Rights still exists that I mean there would be no oversight and no Bill of Rights.
Once again, I’m not making a “proposal”/etc.
There is an argument to be made that having professional peace keepers is a good thing. Just like there is an argument that having some fire fighters be pros is a good thing. Just like having pro medics (EMT/etc) is a good thing.
There also is an argument to be made that all the above should be subject to civilian control.
Sure, in a lot of cases, the pros don’t need to be wandering around. But there is an argument to be made that (a) they should be able to be summoned in a timely manner by the civilian peace keepers, (b) the civilian peacekeepers and the pros have veto power over each other.
Another consideration is that the pro/civilian dichotomy would allow a whole lot more civilians to participate. Not everyone is physically capable of breaking up a fight, and not everyone feels comfortable directly confronting others, and the level of training to be safely out wandering around would be lessened.
It was mostly just a throwaway line about Zimmerman. I’ll let you carry on with Sabo rather than do what I was criticizing others for yesterday.
Guys I’ve had a great idea for a bumper sticker. All black with a thin blue line down the middle really large white initials and then much smaller writing saying All Cops Are Beautiful. Or maybe All Cops Act Bravely. Should sell really well to the trump crowd who support our brave boys. Then after they get pulled over a few times they might rethink one or two things.
2 Likes
https://twitter.com/LASDHQ/status/1305039075884187648?s=19
https://twitter.com/josie_huang/status/1305102941624229889?s=19
https://twitter.com/josie_huang/status/1305106914297040905?s=19
https://twitter.com/Rschooley/status/1305182865101959168?s=19
TBF that’s like a half dozen assholes. But it will definitely be played on loop on all right-wing media until the election.
Fuck the sheriffs for making that sound like an organized blockade.
Thanks for this clarification. In regard to the last part, I didn’t include it in my previous post because I’m lazy, but I had a specific set of research in mind that suggests non-violent protest has been more effective than violent protest. I wasn’t really going off feel, as I don’t have much understanding of political protests. I was thinking about Erica Chenoweth’s work, which I haven’t read, but I’ve heard her discuss in a couple interviews:
Though it defies consensus, between 1900 and 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance were more than twice as effective as their violent counterparts. Attracting impressive support from citizens that helps separate regimes from their main sources of power, these campaigns have produced remarkable results, even in the contexts of Iran, the Palestinian Territories, the Philippines, and Burma.
Combining statistical analysis with case studies of these specific countries and territories, Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan detail the factors enabling such campaigns to succeed-and, at times, causing them to fail. They find that nonviolent resistance presents fewer obstacles to moral and physical involvement, information and education, and participator commitment. Higher levels of participation then contribute to enhanced resilience, a greater probability of tactical innovation, increased opportunity for civic disruption (and therefore less incentive for the regime to maintain the status quo), and shifts in loyalty among opponents’ erstwhile supporters, including members of the military establishment. They find successful nonviolent resistance movements usher in more durable and internally peaceful democracies, which are less likely to regress into civil war. Presenting a rich, evidentiary argument, this book originally and systematically compares violent and nonviolent outcomes in different historical periods and geographical contexts, debunking the myth that violence occurs because of structural and environmental factors and is necessary to achieve certain political goals. Instead, Chenoweth and Stephan find violent insurgency is rarely justifiable on strategic grounds.
Again, I’m not claiming all the liberals are consciously acting in bad faith. However, the “where’s the proposals” trope isn’t a legitimate argument. For a couple of reasons…
- Regarding ends: it’s a variation of “So, in your fantasy Marxist utopia, how would ______?”. These liberals don’t ever want to chat about ends.
- Regarding means: It attempts to constrain the chat to what can get done (a) only through the existing system (while leaving it intact), and (b) only what “polls” well.
As to confronting the “where’s the proposals” trope… the first thing to realize is that it is content free. Imagine trying to explain how the Constitution of 1789 functions in 2020 to a New England royalist in 1770.
- Modern Liberal: Abolish the King!
- Colonial Royalist: ZOMG that would like everyone grabbed muskets and started purging each other, and their would be “Mad Maximilian” types rampaging with bad haircuts !
- Colonial Fake Mad-Men: “Abolish the King” polls sorely among left handed slave drivers in “battle ground” states. Don’t be childish! Get ye to pray for the King to solve your problems!
- The “where’s the proposals” royalist: Well, what would happen if this King (which you insist on calling a President LOL) doesn’t abdicate if he losses this farcical “election” you carry on about? Huh? Gotcha!
The second thing to realize is, as it is indeed content free, is that confronting it with facts, counter-arguments, and linkees is not going to have any effect.
They are not interested in those things. They won’t even follow a linkee (which we lol-tastically saw just up ITT, where a liberal critized a website for being too white, that he never even viewed). They are only interested in having some fool/victim making some future tense hypothetical… and then mercilessly nit-picking it.
2 Likes
There has been some research on this matter. As always, what is more “effective” is completely dependent on what what metric is used to measure effectiveness.
This (pdf, it’s available on the web as well) is another bit of academic research regarding this issue. I didn’t bother to reread it, but IIRC…
-
As regard to desegregating lunch counters in the 1960s, and using the metric of time, campaigns that were (primarily) violent were more effective than campaigns that were (completely) non-violent.
-
Again, using the metric of time, campaigns that exhibited a diversity of tactics (both violent and non-violent) were more effective than either one of the above.
1 Like
I had to call the cops when the neighborhood bully was trying to break into my house to beat me up. He only relented and ran off when I told him I called the cops.
When I was 6 or 7, someone called our babysitter and said they were watching us and going to rape her. Probably not true but it sure was nice to have the cops there until our parents could be located.
Obviously these are pretty minor compared to someone at your door with a gun or an abusive partner situation.
My step-grandma had her drunk ex at the door saying he had a gun. She took matters into her own hands and shot through the door. (Texas) Somehow hit him in the back and killed him - went to jail for 10 years. That sucked.
What is your solution for stuff like this - a number to call to feel good?
2 Likes