I Have a Simple Solution To Stop Police Brutality

Police forget, they are meant to serve and protect US, the people !

What if there was a way to hold them accountable for their behavior and actions at ALL times ??

I propose a police Demerit system.

Where anyone can submit a demerit request to the cheif or union.

Every 3 demerits would be unpaid time off, and the 7th demerit would be termination.

The demerits would also come off of an officers record the following year, same day. To allow officers the opportunity to change their behavior.

Demerits should br fairly easy to get, and no one should know how many the officer has.

A citizen could fill out a form or email as long with any evidence or testimony to the union steward or cheif. Demerits should become a normal activity to deal with. However not consume too much time.

Someone would review them and if they are worthy go to the next step ( you cant demerit a cop just because you got a ticket )

Worthy demerits are public record, they would call in the officer or both parties and decide if its a demeritable offense, perhaps assault or something serious would count as 3 or 5 demerits.

I believe this would systematicaly weed out all of the bad apples, and make cops aware that they will be held accountable for their actions and even the smallest offense can get them tanked

What do you think ??

Edit :
To avoid seeing this system as something purely " negative" and to make police unions and departments more open to accepting it, I propose demerits work hand in hand with "officer recognizations" .

So the community would be pushed to not only report negative run ins with police, but also good ones, and officers can receice paid time off for going above and beyond.

A volunteer public board can review and enforce decisions working hand in hand with the union and department.

We should recognize all actions, good and bad and allow officers to choose their own path.

a reply to: IntastellaBurst

So you are suggesting that an officer could assault an innocent person twice every year for the rest of their working lives without it affecting their job status?

And this stops police brutality?

I think by the time someone is murdered by police it is too late to give them a demerit and giving them one demerit at that point seems insufficient.

a reply to: IntastellaBurst

Police forget, they are meant to serve and protect US, the people !

Not really

2005 SCOTUS Ruling: Police Not Constitutionally Bound to Protect Citizens

A 2005 Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling that received little attention when handed down

LINK

a reply to: IntastellaBurst

Would a department have any time for police work after being flooded with de-merit submissions? Each would need to be investigated - how would you efficiently separate the wheat from the chaff ?..... so to speak.

a reply to: IntastellaBurst


I think it's a good idea. Anything that addresses the issue of police misconduct is a good idea.

One idea that occurred to me was to have the police be licensed by the state and subject to a review bored. Maybe these two ideas could be used together. Complaints could be sent to the Review Board who would then issue the demerits. Seven demerits would result in the loss of their license and they would no longer be able to practice law enforcement in the state.

I'm going to keep an eye on this thread to see how many good ideas come out to address this issue.

Thank you for putting this out there.

frankly in my opinion, I think if it goes much further, there will be a more deadly and quicker solution...maybe it's time for the 99.99% of cops that are the good guys, to once and for all, force the rest of the bad apples out...everywhere else, professionals that put their fellow workers in harm's way are quickly thrown out.

originally posted by: LiveForever8
a reply to: IntastellaBurst

So you are suggesting that an officer could assault an innocent person twice every year for the rest of their working lives without it affecting their job status?

And this stops police brutality?

Give us ideas, not complaints, how would you change this ?

Maybe assault was the wrong word, lets say excessive force, at least it could be reported where otherwise it wouldnt.

Perhaps each force, could have two representatives who deal with demerit requests as needed,.

I dont think it would take as much time as you think.

a reply to: IntastellaBurst

I think it's a great idea--sounds pretty original too.
But who enforces the demerits? Wouldn't there be that brotherhood mentality still, allowing some to slide by?

Perhaps moral and ethical education would help, too. Like having them look back on the police code of ethics and maybe have them actually understand what it means. It's a really honorable code--and they should be proud to live by it. Proud to be policemen and women who are model citizens and civil servants.

Perhaps the NSA should do some snooping and gather data on loose-cannon cops on the edge. And then fire the lot of them in one fell swoop. Because if you're being shiesty then you have no place being a cop--you'd be more like the antithesis of a cop and shouldn't really have another chance due to the prestige of the position.

And then give the good ones that are left nice pay raises and incentives so that they behave.

Provide counseling for trauma and for just everyday things. To help them ease the burden of their job.

Or perhaps take their guns and arm them with some kind of taze-gun that can fire multiple rounds (at a low enough voltage to ensure no death). Give them a tranquilizer gun instead. Except if it's a SWAT team--then they can each have a pistol or something. But only allow military/national guard to carry firearms. (and license-bearing citizens of course). It seems like the problem isn't guns in the hands of the people so much as it is becoming a major problem for law enforcement to pack heat. Too many of them these days are just going ham on that trigger and it needs to stop. So take the toy away and give them better toys with more utility. Since in all likelihood the nasty attitude some of them have isn't going to change.

Or invent like this personal force-field box that keeps whomever is inside of it absolutely safe from any attack. So that they can stun and tranquilize perps without having to fear getting shot themselves if the perps have illegal firearms.

It's like in A Clockwork Orange (the book). When Alex gets out of the Ludovico Treatment and heads back to the house called Home but is intercepted by his once-friends who then beat him within an inch of his life because they're rozzes (police) now and they can do whatever they want.

ive been thinking about this as well.

we need police. i think we all know that.

what about a private police force? a force that did actually answer to the people. where the citizens actually did pay the salary, sit on the board...the whole deal. independent inquiry....

anyone see the movie kuffs? thats how it was.

cities were broken up into districts. each district had a police force. the citizens that live in that district pay a 'tax' or whatever you want to call it to pay for their salary...
i wonder if something like that would work.

in the cases of brutality, it could be investigated by the board(of citizens from the district) and if charges are to be pressed then the cop would be turned over to a neighboring(impartial) district...

i dont know....

something like that.

pay them well. but dont let them get away with any # either...
just brain storming

Seems to me the system you describe is more or less already in place in many places. How well it is executed or enforced is another story, depending on politics and corruption.

a reply to: semperfortis

Just because someone is not constitutionally bound to do their job doesn't mean that their job is not to protect and serve when that is the job they are hired for and when that is what is defined by their locality and where they are contractually bound.

The constitution not covering something and a ruling in one case with specific bounds doesn't override or preclude a contract that does. Just wow at the logic here.

The OP is assuming that those who give the demerits are better than the police they give them to. I hate to tell you all but I really see the same type of person on both ends.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

You are obviously confusing your OPINION with the LAW...

It's fine to have an opinion, but the law is clear...

As a very wise man once said

You can have your own opinion, but NOT your own facts

a reply to: Grovit

what about a private police force?

That is pure insanity. Essentially, police are becoming private... to give them free reign to do so? No way.

Of course, this raised red flags for me. After the violent crackdown on Occupy Wall Street in November of 2011, when that group was having some of its most significant successes in protests and actions that challenged private banks and Wall Street institutions, many wondered what had motivated the unexpected aggression against protesters by local police officers tasked, at least overtly by municipal law, with upholding their first amendment rights.

The NYPD became, at the time, coordinated in its crackdown once Occupy had started to target banks. Was there a relationship behind the scenes of which we were unaware?

Chase bank had made a gift of $4.6m to the Police Foundation – boasting on its website that this "was the largest" in that group's history, and hoping that the money would allow the NYPD to "strengthen security". This police fund, as well as some details of a Rudi Giuliani-initiated program by which police officers had been hired by corporations, created a brief stir online.

The Guardian

a force that did actually answer to the people.

They're supposed to.

where the citizens actually did pay the salary

We already do. Our taxes pay for all law enforcement and their equipment.

sit on the board

Public oversight would be a great thing. But not to the extreme you mention here:

in the cases of brutality, it could be investigated by the board(of citizens from the district) and if charges are to be pressed then the cop would be turned over to a neighboring(impartial) district...

As angry as I am about all this police brutality and murder, I wouldn't want to subject anyone to this. We have a justice system, one that would work just fine if it didn't privilege authority and the rich and didn't oppress the poor and minority.

originally posted by: IntastellaBurst
Give us ideas, not complaints, how would you change this ?

I don't think you can change it.

The real problem is not some dehumanised, #-scared, hyped-up cop with an itchy trigger finger. The real problem is the corruption that goes right to the top preventing any convictions being made. Threatening officers with the naughty step every time they step out of line is a ridiculous sentiment in the face of widespread misconduct within the numerous agencies and departments.

Time to dust off that guillotine?

originally posted by: Kali74

They're supposed to.



We already do. Our taxes pay for all law enforcement and their equipment.

i know they are supposed to answer to the citizens but it does not appear to actually happen.
and i know taxes go for law enforcement but i am talking about the extreme end.
directly from citizens in the district.
basically what i am getting at is it would be nice if the citizens that live in the district/jurisdiction could over see all of it.
hiring. firing. salary. money spent and on what. know what i mean.
where the people that are paying and supposed to be protected handled all the oversight.


basically whatever get the citizens hands directly on the pulse of what is going on.
know IAD # when a matter needs to be investigated. the citizens

a reply to: Grovit

Many departments now have "Citizen Review Boards"

a reply to: IntastellaBurst

How about we start with politics first!

Here is how the justice system protects their own. This goes way farther up the food chain than bad cops....

The drunk lady in the video is a judge, who ends up not getting charged for a DUI....



Link to full story

originally posted by: semperfortis
a reply to: ~Lucidity

You are obviously confusing your OPINION with the LAW...

It's fine to have an opinion, but the law is clear...

As a very wise man once said

You can have your own opinion, but NOT your own facts

What you quoted may be fact but the opinions derived from this ruling were not necessarily so.

A contract is law. Those signing a contract or laboring under an implied contract are bound by law. And a supreme court ruling one specific case with specific set of circumstances does not make it the prevailing and ruling law of the land, particularly when the ruling on case is about the absence of something in the constitution, and probably in the local circumstance and not what the constitution states.

The constitution does not say "it is illegal to protect and serve." It simply does not address this point.

originally posted by: semperfortis
a reply to: Grovit

Many departments now have "Citizen Review Boards"

that works.
i definitely dont have the logistics worked out and would not know how to implement any of it.
it would be nice if the people actually did run the show...

if the people actually were the boss then # might get done.
i unno