zlacker

> US police forces seem to have a very short training

Correct; some states have laws mandating training hours for barbers that are longer than that mandated for police [0].

> not centrally vetted by any federal organism

As with many things in the US, these rules are mostly state-based (read: 50 different, often overlapping but also often contradictory systems) but with a patchwork of federal oversight.

For example, in 2012, the federal government stepped in with a judicial document called a "consent decree" aimed at reforming the Seattle police department after "a pattern or practice of excessive force that violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law" [1].

That's an example of federal oversight, but it only happens after problems have already occurred; it only applies to the city of Seattle; and it's temporary. Only a month ago [2] the city was in court petitioning for "we're all better now, federal oversight can end".

After saying in court they were reformed and would no longer use excessive force, Seattle PD used so much tear gas in a residential neighborhood that it seeped into peoples' homes [3]. Then they announced a 30 day ban on use of tear gas [4]. Then about 48 hours later they used tear gas anyway (after using "blast balls" containing "pepper spray gas" the previous night and insisting it didn't count as tear gas). Finally a federal judge stepped in [5] and issued a 14 day ban on its use - another example of our federal oversight being reactive and not proactive.

Oh, and did I mention Seattle PD shot a "less-lethal" grenade round directly at a protester, causing enough blunt force trauma to stop her heart and require life-saving CPR? [6] That was on the same night they used tear gas after promising not to.

And they threw flashbang grenades at the medics who were trying to save her life. [7]

(in case it's not obvious, I'm a Seattle resident and I'm pissed)

Another example of how complicated our justice system can be that might surprise people from other countries is all the levels of police forces we have - city police / county sheriff / state police (plus federal law enforcement - FBI, TSA, border patrol, and so on). Especially in rural areas the county sheriff often wields a tremendous amount of power [8].

0: https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/us/jobs-training-police-trnd/...

1: http://www.seattlemonitor.com/overview

2: https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2020/05/08/city-of-seattle-fi...

3: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2020/06/04/43840246/seattle...

4: https://crosscut.com/2020/06/seattle-issues-30-day-ban-tear-...

5: https://www.kuow.org/stories/federal-judge-in-seattle-bans-u...

6: https://www.kuow.org/stories/this-26-year-old-died-three-tim...

7: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gywxhz/folks_i_nee...

8: https://theappeal.org/the-power-of-sheriffs-an-explainer/

>>evil-o+(OP)
County sheriff is essentially a mini executive branch in rural areas, and I believe is often an elected position.

Thanks for laying out some of that context on Seattle PD.

>>evil-o+(OP)
you're entirely warranted to be pissed about tear gas use, but it's misguided to expect quick and accurate federal redress, as the executive function intentionally doesn't cover state or local jurisdictions.

states run themselves, and the federal judiciary basically only steps in when state/local governments don't follow their own rules (the presumed expression of the will of the people) or violate the constitution. the constrained executive response follows from the judiciary (and sometimes the legislature).

and that's the way it should be. you want power local and limited, not consolidated and far away. that would only make things like use of force worse.

so the immediate appeal to authority should be to the local, and then state, judiciary and legislature stepping in with corrective actions. the feds aren't of much use here. they're intentionally a line of last (and slow) resort.

>>clairi+Jh
I'm generally for states' rights, but the federal government stepping in to enforce civil rights in the face of local corruption has a long and storied history. Furthermore, the consent decree was already in place, so yes, enforcement should have been pretty quick and should actually have teeth to get these criminals prosecuted.

>>clairi+Jh
Why would people want power local and limited? Noting the sordid history of local, "States Rights", Jim Crow style policies that exist at the local level. Especially when the issue concerns US policing which is the ideological descendant of slave patrols.

>>clairi+Jh
> you want power local and limited, not consolidated and far away. that would only make things like use of force worse.

Maybe in your country but in many, many places in the world this is demonstrably not the case.

>>x86_64+Xl
Sheriffs date back to the early 1300s. Even up until the 1970s, small communities had local militias and army reserves when things got beyond what a sheriff could handle. Most of these places switched to policing in the late 70s and 80s. How, precisely is that "the ideological descendent of slave patrols"?

>>xyzzy_+8r
> "Maybe in your country but in many, many places in the world this is demonstrably not the case."

as with markets, idiosyncratic conditions like sociopathy can lead to pockets of undue concentrations of power, no doubt.

but it would be even worse if those same conditions were concentrated on and elevated to wider populations. by distributing power, you can more effectively pit one against the other, and have some chance of bettering conditions over time. those chances decrease with power concentration.

>>x86_64+Xl
> "Why would people want power local and limited?"

it's worse if we had the same sordid problems at a state or national level. it's rolling the dice once or 50 times vs. rolling them ~50,000 times.