Since everyone is going around complaining about cops or rioters (and rightfully so) I thought I'd take an opportunity to offer actual solutions. These are the solutions I would impose to solve the problem.

Most of the solution centers around just one important problem that is the root of the whole issue. Police are above the law. They tend to get leniency for crimes due to be officer, especially when it is the result of carrying out their "duty" and even when there is an attempt to hold them accountable they cover up each others mistakes in various ways that get them out of it. This is where all the solutions lie.. so here they are:

1) eliminate all police unions, I'd say any government job that makes or enforces policy of any kind should not be allowed to unionize. Unions generally use theie collective bargaining power to wipe police officers with bad records clean and thus allow them to avoid getting in trouble.

2) Ensure the law has just as strict a consequence for an officer as it does a citizen and that them being an officer doesnt give them any greater latitude in that regard. If anything their consequences when on duty should be stricter. If they shoot someone because of a mistake because they thought they had a gun when they didnt, murder, no exceptions, no different than a citizen.

3) any officer on the scene when #2 happens and a officer breaks the law is expected to immediately stop the incident if they can and at a minimum arrest the officer immediately. If any officer fails to arrest another officer they will be consider an accomplice and equally as guilty as if they carried out the offense themselves

4) retroactively apply the #2 and #3 to all officers currently on the force to serve as an example. Give a 2 week grace period so any officers who would fall under the category of #3 have a chance to arrest their fellow officers who have in the past commited a crime under #2. After two weeks any officers guilty of #2 or #3 will be arrested with no forgiveness. Resigning from their position will not grant them immunity.

5) Require body cams, ensure the body cams can not be turned off

6) Any officer intentionally hiding their body cam during an incident will immediately loose their job and be fined one year back pay. If there is evidence of wrong doing they will be tried and this action held against them as evidence.

7) officers are always required to be in pairs or more.

8) Reverse broken-glass policying policies from the top down. Have officers focus on real crime as a priority and deprioritize non-violent crimes.


@freemo as I understand it, the problem isn't a lack of rules defining unacceptable behaviour, or even consequences prescribed for breaking the rules. The problem is that the prosecutor is usually disincentivised from going after the cops, so the prescribed consequences are only rarely imposed.

From the prosecutor's perspective, maintaining a good working relationship with the police is important, since they're responsible for collecting the evidence the he uses to win convictions every day. So he does them little favours which ultimately make it unlikely an officer is convicted for on-duty behaviour in all but the worst cases.

And I don't know how you fix this. You might appoint a special prosecutor who only targets cops, so he doesn't need police cooperation to score convictions against civilians - but this role is eventually going to be subject to regulatory capture and wind up in the hands of someone friendly to the cops. You might create a separate unit tasked solely with investigating their fellow cops - but the ones appointed to this unit are going to be the doofi who aren't more valuable in other roles. How can you guarantee both the independence and competence of your oversight solution?

Any solution you come up with is going to be pitting you against perps who have a better-than-civilian understanding of the law, the rules concerning evidence, and ways lawbreakers can escape consequence. So you need to have as robust a system as possible, because the people searching it for weaknesses are very good at finding them.

@khird Thats a good point.

The DA and State Attorneys are the ones who would serve in both capacities int he current system. On the one hand they rely on police to bring them evidence and thus need a good working relationship with them, thus are disencentivized to prosecute them.

They would also be the ones responsible for prosecuting them, so it creates a conflict of interest...

Seems to me the solution is clear.. Split the DA's office into two parts. one group of attorneys who job it is to work with police to convict criminals, and entierly separate state departmartment of attorneys who job it is to prosecute police officers.

Conflict of interest solved.

In the future I will add this as a 9th point to my ramblings, thank you.

@freemo Maybe. But it seems to me the police-prosecution department is still going to be subject to regulatory capture or defanging. What happens when a new mayor gets elected on a law-and-order platform? He'll appoint a cop-friendly leader of the department, or reduce its funding, or promote the better prosecutors away from the job leaving only the idiots who aren't effective at convicting cops. Then he can speechify about how he's fighting the deep state which is obstructing the police from doing their jobs, destroying America, etc.

@khird Well thats not a very good argument. You are basically saying "What if we have stupid politicians who refuse to support the laws that fix the problem".. well sure, that is legitimate.. Thats why we are rioting, and, when your not busy rioting, how about just not voting for those politicians?

Any solution will ultimately require the people to vote and elect politicians that support and maintain the solution. You cant protect against that in any way other than having a society that votes responsibly.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.