zlacker

>>Kapura+(OP)
If there is one group of people who are constitutionally (heh) ill-equipped to monitor free citizens who are exercising their constitutional rights to petition their government for redress of grievances, it's people whose entire job history has been the exercise of power over incarcerated federal offenders, who do not have the right to peaceably assemble.

Doubly so when they're prison riot control officers who all look like they're clones of Byron Hadley, The Screw Everyone Hates from "Shawshank Redemption".

When a prison guard sees a crowd chanting protests, they are going to react very badly.

Get them out.

And get badges on the rest of them. Then get them out, too.

>>hprota+B8
My feeling is being in uniform and acting under color of authority without a badge and name tag should be a felony.

>>Gibbon+RQ
Even if it were a felony, who would enforce it?

Consider that NYPD, for all of its faults, actually has the Civilian Complaint Review Board. Which provides citizens the ability to officially complain about bad behaviors of various cops.

However, review boards do not exist for all police forces. And many review boards have insufficient power to properly reprimand a specific cop who does a bad job.

We need a specific organization to police the police. FBI kinda-sorta does it (but not under this administration. Under Obama, the FBI was charged with investigating police brutality). Since the FBI's orders changes with the whims of the President, it is clear we need a long-lasting organization that provides oversight even when a Republican is in office.

>>dragon+lU
> Even if it were a felony, who would enforce it?

What if the law says explicitly that an officer in uniform without a badge and name tag has no legal authority and can be presumed to be committing a felony?

>>Gibbon+7a1
The law can set the speed limit whatever it wants. If there's no police officer there enforcing the speed limit, I'll drive at whatever speed I care to.

The most important part of law, is law ENFORCEMENT. If you do not assign someone to enforce a law that is written, then it will be ignored.

>>dragon+Ze1
It seems we need parallel executive branches. The second which is beholden to the polity, and who’s job is to police the former. That way we don’t have an automatic “regulatory capture”, which we currently have. Heck, let them go after each other: divide & conquer style.

Maybe have the top-level official be elected at a very-fine granularity, but with the power to enforce across locality lines? Like—elect at the county level, but can enforce anywhere in the State?