No, it isn't. It's an often repeated lie that BLM and their supporters desperately want to be "factual" and nothing more.The fact that there exists a disproportionate use of lethal force against black bodies – nationally speaking – is just factual. – Van Deventer
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Our board has several members, I'd even say a majority, who are. Or who are at least fair-minded. A high profile shooting lead to the mayor and chief recommending two officers for termination. The board did not agree and with a 5-2 vote the officers are still employed.Originally Posted by voodoo_man
It varies from board to board. Often you get a mixture of how people are appointed. The mayor picks a few, the union elections pick a few, existing council members pick a few, perhaps even local elections pick a few, it just depends.
I'm actually ok with a civilian merit board *if* there are mandatory training requirements, mandatory ride-alongs, etc. The police are like the military in that ultimately they answer to an elected civilian and have civilian oversight. A decent board with representation from both the community and the officers, along with merit/union protection, is actually helpful for policing. I'd rather not have law enforcement's nuts and bolts decided at the whim of a 4-year elected official and everybody sucking his ass to keep their job, or sucking the ass of his likely replacement to get a job. See: non-merit Sheriff's departments.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
I do not think I will be at odds with you on this, but my thoughts are more restrictive. I have zero problems with accountability. "Answering to", in terms of legislation and policy creation is justifiably within the realm of civilian oversight. TTP's cannot be unless the people performing the oversight have equal or better knowledge than the persons being overseen. Regardless of who anyone answers to, everyone answers to facts, and we are not allowed to possess our own personal subjective set. ("Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams, 'Argument as Attorney in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770)
The POTUS cannot reasonably decide the percentage of thrust or flap settings on Air Force One, nor can the administrator of a hospital sit in judgement of a surgeon's procedures (unless the administrator is of commensurate qualifications).
Last edited by Gray01; 07-17-2019 at 09:39 PM.
There's a plethora of chiefs and sheriffs who've never been a real cop a day in their lives. There are people who hold those roles who never had sworn law enforcement powers until attaining the position, although that's a minority. I suspect the rise in "accreditation " is largely based on this.
If you're unfamiliar with who Frank Straub is, I'd recommend a quick Google. Good example of someone making a career of pretending to be the police until people make him a chief.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
I think that coincides with the point I am making. Absent genuine knowledge and experience, as in the old-fashioned objective type, based upon education training and experience, (regardless of title or position), no one should be sitting in judgement of areas of concern of which they are ignorant. I care not one whit whether the title is Corporal or Commander, Chief or Commander-in-Chief, no one should be doing surgery (on my knee at least) unless they are a well-educated, well-trained, highly-experienced orthopod. I think that advisory/review boards consisting of people possessing the aforementioned requisites would not be problematic. Anything else, in my view, is nothing more than political posturing so as to assist to deflect accountability for the decision making process.
That is, after all, one of the most important roles of any committee, avoiding accountability for decisions. Title holders don't make a decision, they simply "implement the recommendations of the committee".
We're on the same page. I just didn't want anyone to be under the assumption that absent a civilian board a "real cop" was going to be making the nuts and bolts decisions. Sometimes that's the case, sometimes it isn't. A CoP/Sheriff doesn't have to be a nuts and bolts guy to be a good CoP/Sheriff *if* they recognize their limitations and lean on subject matter experts. Expertise is now farmed out in the form of "being accredited" by some outside organization. The people who make a living pretending to be the police seldom have that. They think getting the position now makes them an expert, all their pretending has finally paid off and they buy their own resume.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
I'll take a wild guess and say that she wants to be in politics, and that she's tweeting to the choir like every other pol or wannabe.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
I wonder if they will get a review board.
She tweets for attention. She was self-absorbed to begin with and will continue to bray like an ass to feed ego. Boards should have persons with diverse opinions; however, only one representative should issue official statements.
As a teacher I observed many incompetent school superintendents. Some may have been competent in lesser roles. Also, I have observed a few incompetent leaders in law enforcement. Long ago I said that school superintendents are not teachers, and sheriffs and police chiefs are not cops. People tend to forget where they came from.
In 1968 sociologist scholar Professor Laurence J. Peter wrote a book, The Peter Principle, where he claimed that in organizations employees, when promoted, eventually reach their level of incompetence. Anyone reviewing this information will soon agree that Professor Peter was correct.
Reply With Quote