kidda wrote:Well, he escalated the situation and was criticised for it by his own boss. Had he not done so, he could have just written her a ticket, and ended it there. Whether or not the arrest itself was justified, his behaviour before during and after - as filmed by his own dashcam - was not.

So, she was thoroughly cooperative and the officer escalated the situation for no reason? Is that what you are claiming?

Also, the custodians of a prisoner are responsible for their welfare. Even if it was suicide, it was on their watch.

Yup, and unless you want to spend about 20x what we do now, there is no way to stop all suicides.

A reason not to leave it to the municipalities? Consistent and high standards would be good. They are useful for other professions, aren't they?

Okay, really? The Federal government is going to hold to a higher standard?



I think high standards would be great. However, they involve some "discrimination"--in the good sense of the word. For example, you have to "discriminate" against those who are known gang associates.

I had a man working for me who would spend all his smoke breaks (they used to permit smoking) with the gang members in custody. Eventually, this fine officer was arrested when he bought a kilo of cocaine.

That's what I mean by not "politically palatable."

Is it just LA that has the problem of high rates of police custody deaths then?

No, but California is about 13% of the national population. You'll find that gangs are one of the State's primary exports.

That is prison, not police custody. Sheesh.

Are you sure that's how the study was conducted? Does that rule out jails? You'll find that the jail and prison populations are, unsurprisingly, very similar. Furthermore, most "in custody" deaths are not people with clean records.

Our drug laws, our gun laws, our gang culture, and other factors all play into this number. You can analyze it all you want, but many of the issues you are concerned about have little to do with the police.

So let's prove it with an investigation? I agree that your gun laws and culture have a lot to do with it. So does police action in that context.

For the FIFTH TIME, have your freaking investigation. The end result, I'll wager you, will be bupkis.

Well, in 1996/7 Bernard Parks, the guy in charge of LAPD's Internal Affairs - who later became police chief - stalled the investigation for months, then sat on the initial report. in 2000, 3-4 years after the incidents of murder etc, the lead investigator into Rampart filed civil suit about his work being obstructed and suppressed. The city council (against the wishes of the Mayor) brought the DoJ in. Parks was still in post until the Mayor was replaced in 2001, and when Hahn sacked Parks it hit his popularity - apparently contributing to his losing his re-election bid in 2005

106 convictions led by Rampart's CRASH team were overturned, 140 lawsuits were filed against the LAPD and city, costing $125M.

Not really a ringing endorsement of localism. I'd think given that Parks was a Democrat you'd be disgusted that he was allowed to get away for so long with protecting criminal cops. I'd hope you'd feel the same if he wasn't a Dem, too.

Hey, you're welcome to change our system of government . . . oh wait, you can't. What a shame.

Doctor Fate wrote:

kidda wrote:Well, he escalated the situation and was criticised for it by his own boss. Had he not done so, he could have just written her a ticket, and ended it there. Whether or not the arrest itself was justified, his behaviour before during and after - as filmed by his own dashcam - was not.

So, she was thoroughly cooperative and the officer escalated the situation for no reason? Is that what you are claiming?

No, it is not. She was not very co-operative, but the cop made the situation worse, rather than calming it down.

Also, the custodians of a prisoner are responsible for their welfare. Even if it was suicide, it was on their watch.

Yup, and unless you want to spend about 20x what we do now, there is no way to stop all suicides.

All? No. But "custody" does have a meaning.

A reason not to leave it to the municipalities? Consistent and high standards would be good. They are useful for other professions, aren't they?

Okay, really? The Federal government is going to hold to a higher standard? [/quote]Does it have to be Federal? Professions have their own national standards and not all are enforced by Feds. It is you who keeps bringing up the Federal government bogeyman.

Sigh

I think high standards would be great. However, they involve some "discrimination"--in the good sense of the word. For example, you have to "discriminate" against those who are known gang associates.

I had a man working for me who would spend all his smoke breaks (they used to permit smoking) with the gang members in custody. Eventually, this fine officer was arrested when he bought a kilo of cocaine.

That's what I mean by not "politically palatable."

I would agree that he should not have been allowed to get that far. So what was the "political" issue? And does local democratic control make that an issue?

Is it just LA that has the problem of high rates of police custody deaths then?

No, but California is about 13% of the national population. You'll find that gangs are one of the State's primary exports. [/quote]So it's all LA's fault?

That is prison, not police custody. Sheesh.

Are you sure that's how the study was conducted? Does that rule out jails? You'll find that the jail and prison populations are, unsurprisingly, very similar. Furthermore, most "in custody" deaths are not people with clean records.

I am sure it was about "police custody", so arrest to jail, but not prison. I have read it.

Our drug laws, our gun laws, our gang culture, and other factors all play into this number. You can analyze it all you want, but many of the issues you are concerned about have little to do with the police.

So let's prove it with an investigation? I agree that your gun laws and culture have a lot to do with it. So does police action in that context.

For the FIFTH TIME, have your freaking investigation. The end result, I'll wager you, will be bupkis.

I was asking why you don't have one. Quit being so sensitive - you don't want one, and you believe it would have no real outcome. Is that why those with power are not having one?

Hey, you're welcome to change our system of government . . . oh wait, you can't. What a shame.

Whatever, kidda.

danivon wrote:No, it is not. She was not very co-operative, but the cop made the situation worse, rather than calming it down.

Okay, but that does not excuse her. And, of course, that's the point. If she did the right thing, there is no evidence to suggest she would have been arrested.

Does it have to be Federal? Professions have their own national standards and not all are enforced by Feds. It is you who keeps bringing up the Federal government bogeyman.

I'm not looking, but I think you asked for a Congressional investigation.

There are, at least in CA, standards that exceed local control. It's called the "Professional Office of Standards and Training," aka "POST."

I would agree that he should not have been allowed to get that far. So what was the "political" issue? And does local democratic control make that an issue?

He had no criminal record, just bad associations. If he were disqualified for that, it would be "guilt by association" and maybe even considered racial discrimination.

Is it just LA that has the problem of high rates of police custody deaths then?

No, but California is about 13% of the national population. You'll find that gangs are one of the State's primary exports.

So it's all LA's fault?[/quote]

No, but you really can't overstate their influence.

That is prison, not police custody. Sheesh.

I am sure it was about "police custody", so arrest to jail, but not prison. I have read it.

I don't know what the current County Jail population is in LA, but I do know it was 20,000 plus in the day. That's a lot of people in "police custody" and that's one County.

I was asking why you don't have one. Quit being so sensitive - you don't want one, and you believe it would have no real outcome. Is that why those with power are not having one?

There have been plenty. This guy for one.

Btw, Tanaka and several below him have been indicted. Baca resigned.

But, Merrick Bobb "investigated" for more than two decades. His investigation had little/nothing to do with the resignation and indictments.

A survey of police officers regarding use of force.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181312.pdf

danivon wrote:Like that's stopped them before on things like whether a President got a BJ from an intern, on how baseball is run (five times recently?) and presumably all kinds of other rubbish that does not involve the loss of life.

Agree completely those were wastes of time and taxpayer money which were nothing more than P.R. trips for imcumbents.

danivon wrote:If it were just one or two States where this was an issue, I would agree. I can find national data - do you have evidence that this is not a nationwide issue?

Show me in the Constitution where Congress has the power to regulate local police departments.

Commerce Clause.

It is what is used for everything else. [sarcasm]

Archduke Russell John wrote:
Show me in the Constitution where Congress has the power to regulate local police departments.

Firstly, just because there is a national issue that can be looked at by your national government, does not mean it has to be "regulated" by Congress.

Secondly, there are a few Bill of Rights Amendments that cover the powers (and so behaviour of, and regulation of) the police and law enforcement - regardless of level. I would refer to the 4th and 8th in that regard.

Of course, there were not such things as police forces in 1789, and the flip question is whether the police as they are organised are themselves constitutional.

The 14th Amendment provides:

Section 1:... "No state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Section 5: " Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Here is a law review discussing the privileges and immunities clause. http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/02/con ... tizenship/

So if the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches or unlawful searches is a privilege and immunity, then Congress would have the power to regulate local police departments.

The Department of Justice was given power under the law enforcement act of 1994 to sue police departments for civil rights violations. http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/ ... 202013.pdf

I recall the original 1964 Civil Rights law banning discrimination by public accommodations was based on the Commerce Clause. I imagine that is still the source for authority to sue local police departments but I have not looked into it. Of course the receipt of federal money could lead to jurisdiction, too.

Mercy.

Look, the Cincinnati situation is a perfect illustration of a few things. First, why is there a University of Cincinnati Police Department?

Because the University wants localized control of the officers.

Second, I can tell you that such "departments" get less-qualified candidates. Who wants to be a glorified security officer? Only someone who can't get on a bigger PD with more advancement opportunities.

Third, obviously, local review worked just fine. No Federal study needed.

freeman3 wrote:The 14th Amendment provides:

Section 1:... "No state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Section 5: " Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Here is a law review discussing the privileges and immunities clause. http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/02/con ... tizenship/

So if the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches or unlawful searches is a privilege and immunity, then Congress would have the power to regulate local police departments.

I only skimmed the Harvard article but from what I could see, that is not the way the Court has interpreted the Privileges and Immunities clause. As a matter of fact, the judicial interpretation since 1869 has pretty much made that clause impotent and meaningless. Therefore, it could not be used to federally regulate local police.

freeman3 wrote:I recall the original 1964 Civil Rights law banning discrimination by public accommodations was based on the Commerce Clause.

Yes by the argument that people using public accommodations where traveling and most likely traveling interstate; therefore, interstate commerce was affected.

You're right Archduke that the privileges and immunities has been a dormant provision. But the 14th Amendment Due Process clause has not been. How is 42 USC 1983 constitutional? It was originally a statute passed in 1871 to deal with the problems with the klan down south where southern state governments were not enforcing the law against the klan . The case that allowed 42 USC 1983 claims to flourish was Monroe v Pape (1961). 365 U .S 167. There the Supreme Court held that a state could be held liable when the act of a state employee violated state law. The court stated that previous decisions had held that "Congress has the power to enforce provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment against those who carry the badge of the authority of a state and and represent it in some capacity, whether they act in accordance with their capacity or abuse it." The court noted that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures had been made applicable to the states by the due process clause.

The analysis is pretty straightforward . Almost all of the Bill of the Rights has been made applicable to the states by the doctrine of incorporation through the 14th Amendment Due Process clause. Congress has been given the explicit power to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment. Thus , Congress has the explicit power to pass legislation to deal with state or local entities that are systematically violating civil rights protected by the Constitution. In fact, the Congress in 1994 passed a law giving the Department of Justice power to sue local police departments if they were violating civil rights.

Getting back to the original question, does Congress have jurisdiction over local police departments? Well, it does if the police department is routinely using unlawful force, unlawfully detaining people, doing unlawful searches, etc. If so, Congress has the power to do something about it. And it would be strange if the Congress--given the power in this area--should also not have the power to investigate to determine if something should be done.

So six of one, half dozen of another--the privileges and immunities is an apparently more explicit clause but is pretty much moribund. But the Due Process clause is alive and well.

freeman3 wrote:Getting back to the original question, does Congress have jurisdiction over local police departments? Well, it does if the police department is routinely using unlawful force, unlawfully detaining people, doing unlawful searches, etc. If so, Congress has the power to do something about it. And it would be strange if the Congress--given the power in this area--should also not have the power to investigate to determine if something should be done.

So six of one, half dozen of another--the privileges and immunities is an apparently more explicit clause but is pretty much moribund. But the Due Process clause is alive and well.

So, gee whiz, why aren't your lefty friends filing the suits to prove this and force Congress into action?