zlacker

I fully support the ACLU in these lawsuits. However, their last paragraph states "If the government refuses to hold its officers accountable for their unlawful actions, we will." But suing the state doesn't result in accountability for the officers. It punishes the taxpayers. The perpetrators of these crimes never see any fallout from them. If we want real change, police officers have to experience personal consequences for their actions.

>>zargon+(OP)
Punishing the taxpayers is fine. At the end of the day, they’re the ones who elect the officials who hire the police chiefs.

>>zargon+(OP)
The tax payers should elect officials who will hold the police responsible. Ultimately, the police report to the Mayor, Sheriff or some other elected official who is responsible for setting the policies for officers.

Yeah, it's pretty indirect and not ideal. But it does work. My parents live in a town that dissolved their police force because police abuse caused the city to institute an income tax. This was a pretty far right town too.

>>zargon+(OP)
The voters are the state.

When the taxpayers are citizens with voting rights they do bear responsibility for the actions of the state they voted in.

>>Strang+a5
What if they voted against the office holders in the current state? Are they still subjected to be responsible for the tyranny of the majority?

>>rayine+45
This is one of the unspoken truth of democracy.

Democracy reflect the people, if the people sucks, the democracy will also suck. This is a feature not a bug.

>>rayine+45
I agree it's fine, and needs to happen. Let's not pretend that it enforces any accountability on the officers involved in this suit. (Which is what the quote says. As interpret it, anyway.) It's just a tiny part of what needs to happen.

>>tomrod+a6
They are still responsible, as far as our laws are concerned. The government derives its power from the people, and one of those powers is the power to tax.

Not every tyrannical decision is made by the majority, and not every majority decision is tyrannical.

We make collective decisions, and we live with the consequences. Every election presents us with such a decision. Moreover, voting is not the limit. If you truly believe a particular candidate is bad, you are free to share your ideas, donate to his opponent, or perhaps even run against him yourself.

>>mywitt+65
Interesting. What happened next? Did they survive with no police, or did they rebuild it from the ground up?

>>mywitt+65
There's no single elected official that has power to fix this. It's a complex web of responsibilities. Government has immense momentum. It's a herculean task for even a majority of elected officials to significantly change its direction. Many times that's exactly what we want. In this case it's working against us.

In that light, it's really amazing that your parents' town accomplished that. Instituting an income tax where there was none before is also drastic, so that must have helped a lot.

>>rayine+45
In today's interview with Times, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said he doesn't have power to change police union contracts. So, something rotten out there. Best option for Minneapolis is to disband the police force just like Camden, NJ did. For more, check https://www.startribune.com/here-s-why-cops-can-t-be-held-ac...

>>rainco+Rl
>Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said he doesn't have power to change police union contracts.

At this point screw the fallout from the police union. Rip it up and renegotiate if the existing contractual obligations are too restricting. Realistically whatever recourse the union might have for breach of contract would be worth it. The most damaging action they could take would be to strike, and if they did public support would be against the police at this point and that would be a boon to appeasing the protesters. Heck, make it a PR stunt and start a campaign to get protesters to enroll in the police academy and fix the injustices they're marching for.

Either the PD gets replaced wholesale and the union can pound sand and the protesters are appeased or the union comes back to the table to come up with a reasonable deal that lets the municipality make some real changes to appease the protesters. Regardless of how they proceed serious accountability is crucial.

>>totalZ+e8
Correct, you can run opposition. However, a representative in the US is typically voted using first-past-the-post (modified for the US president). It doesn't matter whether the society accepts the winner with 99.9% or 50.0001%, the spoils remain the same.

It doesn't make sense to me that the losing bloc, which now does not have representation, is subject to the whims of the majority (that is the definition of the tyranny of the majority). A parliamentary system with proportionate representation makes more sense if "blame"for a representative is apportioned to the entire set of constituents and not the bloc that gained power.

>>nmfish+O8
Police services were relegated to the township. It was rather uneventful otherwise. I'm not sure what happened to the officers, but I wouldn't be surprise if they were hired by the township that took over policing duties.

>>rayine+45
Good overall point, but I'd like to point out that not all taxpayers are voters, and not all voters are [significant] taxpayers. So a moderately different group of people are punished than the group that has the power to change things.

>>rayine+45
Speaking of elected officials...

https://theappeal.org/ice-friendly-policies-a-string-of-jail...

“Sheriff candidates must have either an advanced certificate from the state’s Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, or a certain combination of education and law enforcement experience. The law, enacted in 1988, was devised by a subcommittee of the California State Sheriffs’ Association. Before then, the only requirement was that a candidate be registered to vote in the county.”

Where were Deukmejian and Wilson when this was passed?