Federalized Police Force

[B. W.]

Interesting article:

UN Backs Secret Obama Takeover of Police/
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

There is no secret Obama takeover of the police.

You should stop reading this smut, BW. It's bad for your health. (Literally.)

[RickD]

There is no secret Obama takeover of the police.

You should stop reading this smut, BW. It's bad for your health. (Literally.)

Jac,

It's on the intranetz, it must be trooooo.

[JButler]

Consent decrees have been around for quite a while. They've been used only in extreme cases of deep rooted problems within an agency, like corruption or sloppy lab work resulting in questionable findings. If it can be shown a dept or a section of a dept is so out of whack the locals cannot or will not correct it, then a lawsuit is brought against it. If cause is proven then the Federal judge of that jurisdiction becomes an overseer to monitor policy, consider complaints, etc.

Examples: Cicero IL (suburb of Chicago) has been under Federal oversight for a long time. It was the home of Al Capone and is thoroughly corrupt inside and out, top to bottom. The entire city govt (not just the PD) has been subject of numerous investigations over the years. Every time I was in Chicago the local news had a new story about some corrupt public official. At one time the entire police force was removed and Illinois State Police came in to patrol it. Its believed that Cicero PD (and likely other city offices) are bugged by the FBI monitoring it for signs of corruption. Cicero has had numerous chances to straighten themselves out but the people seem so addicted to corruption they can't behave properly. The names change at City Hall but the story does not.

I don't think Chicago PD is under a decree. Its too large for a judge to monitor and quite frankly it would be a real handful for another agency to control given the overall nature of Chicago and all its problems. Cicero is a pretty small suburb so its within the ability of outsiders to monitor and even with that the problems don't go away.

Houston PD forensic lab was under a decree for putting out questionable findings which effected its credibility and couldn't be trusted to provide the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In Houston lab's case it was more an issue of lack of training and incompetent/careless management that got them in hot water. I know they were used as an example of what not to do in a couple training sessions I attended. Every policy change had to be approved by the judge as well as a structured program to improve competency.

Places like Newark NJ had a long history of questionable practices and abuse of power as well as corruption. What it boils down to is: if the local or state officials cannot or will not step in to protect the citizens from corrupt and power abusing local govt, then Big Daddy steps in.

In the past the decree path was one of last resort for the most extreme cases. I know the judges and Fed officers don't sit around looking for cans of worms to jump into because a decree situation is a royal pain to anyone involved.

I think the author of the article is being a bit loose with the truth. However the current White House occupant and his minions have certainly showed willingness to use available tools to strengthen centralized govt to implement without consent or vote.

I'm not worried about a Federalized police force or Federalization of local law enforcement. There would be an aggressive backlash if someone tried that, from the police themselves and a lot of citizens.

[Jac3510]

Consent decrees have been around for quite a while. They've been used only in extreme cases of deep rooted problems within an agency, like corruption or sloppy lab work resulting in questionable findings. If it can be shown a dept or a section of a dept is so out of whack the locals cannot or will not correct it, then a lawsuit is brought against it. If cause is proven then the Federal judge of that jurisdiction becomes an overseer to monitor policy, consider complaints, etc.

Examples: Cicero IL (suburb of Chicago) has been under Federal oversight for a long time. It was the home of Al Capone and is thoroughly corrupt inside and out, top to bottom. The entire city govt (not just the PD) has been subject of numerous investigations over the years. Every time I was in Chicago the local news had a new story about some corrupt public official. At one time the entire police force was removed and Illinois State Police came in to patrol it. Its believed that Cicero PD (and likely other city offices) are bugged by the FBI monitoring it for signs of corruption. Cicero has had numerous chances to straighten themselves out but the people seem so addicted to corruption they can't behave properly. The names change at City Hall but the story does not.

I don't think Chicago PD is under a decree. Its too large for a judge to monitor and quite frankly it would be a real handful for another agency to control given the overall nature of Chicago and all its problems. Cicero is a pretty small suburb so its within the ability of outsiders to monitor and even with that the problems don't go away.

Houston PD forensic lab was under a decree for putting out questionable findings which effected its credibility and couldn't be trusted to provide the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In Houston lab's case it was more an issue of lack of training and incompetent/careless management that got them in hot water. I know they were used as an example of what not to do in a couple training sessions I attended. Every policy change had to be approved by the judge as well as a structured program to improve competency.

Places like Newark NJ had a long history of questionable practices and abuse of power as well as corruption. What it boils down to is: if the local or state officials cannot or will not step in to protect the citizens from corrupt and power abusing local govt, then Big Daddy steps in.

In the past the decree path was one of last resort for the most extreme cases. I know the judges and Fed officers don't sit around looking for cans of worms to jump into because a decree situation is a royal pain to anyone involved.

I think the author of the article is being a bit loose with the truth. However the current White House occupant and his minions have certainly showed willingness to use available tools to strengthen centralized govt to implement without consent or vote.

I'm not worried about a Federalized police force or Federalization of local law enforcement. There would be an aggressive backlash if someone tried that, from the police themselves and a lot of citizens.

I spent a lot of time as an editor in my college days (undergrad and grad). I'm going to try to put those skills to use and restate this a bit for brevity and clarity for those who don't want to plod through all those details you provide:

There is no secret Obama takeover of the police.

Yup. That looks better.

-------------------------------

There is no secret Obama takeover of the police.

You should stop reading this smut, BW. It's bad for your health. (Literally.)

Jac,

It's on the intranetz, it must be trooooo.

You know what else is troo cuz its on da intranetz? This.

[Hortator]

I spent a lot of time as an editor in my college days (undergrad and grad). I'm going to try to put those skills to use and restate this a bit for brevity and clarity for those who don't want to plod through all those details you provide:

There is no secret Obama takeover of the police.

Yup. That looks better.

Rofl!

Hey Jac, let's be fair though. Obama has never come across an expansion of government he did not like. Would he do it? I believe absolutely he would do so. Could he do it? Well, with the advent of BLM, and the atmosphere of strife surrounding state police, a "federal solution" would seem warranted for the occasion. So could he, I think so.

But don't count your chickens before they hatch as the farmer says.

[Jac3510]

Hey Jac, let's be fair though. Obama has never come across an expansion of government he did not like. Would he do it? I believe absolutely he would do so. Could he do it? Well, with the advent of BLM, and the atmosphere of strife surrounding state police, a "federal solution" would seem warranted for the occasion. So could he, I think so.

But don't count your chickens before they hatch as the farmer says.

In fairness to Obama, though, pretty much every president since Kennedy (maybe more?) has increased presidential authority. And yes, that includes Reagan. We've not had the government effectively shrink in . . . well . . . ever, that I know of.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/p ... 97/?no-ist

Anyway, when Obama comes out and starts talking about the importance of a "federal solution" to policing problems, we can visit this issue. Until then, the OP is just wacko conspiracy foolishness. It's just clickbait, completely unworthy of any serious discussion (at least, unworthy of it by serious people). But to be clear, this sort of garbage isn't limited to conservative "news" outlets. The left does it, too, and just as much. I just don't think that we should be party in perpetuating any of it.

[B. W.]

There is no secret Obama takeover of the police.

You should stop reading this smut, BW. It's bad for your health. (Literally.)

Just an interesting article open for debate, nothing more Jac... move on...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This next on is a bit more serious: Leftists at DNC: ‘Long Live Palestine,’ Destroy Israel, Support Black Lives Matter

Leftists at DNC

This is the sort of claptrap from the new BLM KKK...

Add to this BLM leaders trips to the white house

BLM activist attend meetings at White House

White House response to petition against BLM

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck we are told it is not duck but we are instead told that we are the real quacks instead...

Why the support for the murder of police we see from such groups with White House access as well as a prez who attended Rev White's leftist church for 20 years?

What is the reason such radical groups desire to criminalize the local police?

That is what is missing from the equation...

Anyone dares ask the question is labeled a quack why?
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

There is no secret Obama takeover of the police.

You should stop reading this smut, BW. It's bad for your health. (Literally.)

Just an interesting article open for debate, nothing more Jac... move on...

No. YOU move on!





edit:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This next on is a bit more serious: Leftists at DNC: ‘Long Live Palestine,’ Destroy Israel, Support Black Lives Matter

Leftists at DNC

This is the sort of claptrap from the new BLM KKK...

Add to this BLM leaders trips to the white house

BLM activist attend meetings at White House

White House response to petition against BLM

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck we are told it is not duck but we are instead told that we are the real quacks instead...

Why the support for the murder of police we see from such groups with White House access as well as a prez who attended Rev White's leftist church for 20 years?

What is the reason such radical groups desire to criminalize the local police?

That is what is missing from the equation...

Anyone dares ask the question is labeled a quack why?
-
-
-

Hey, look, more outrage pr0n.

[Hortator]

Hey Jac, let's be fair though. Obama has never come across an expansion of government he did not like. Would he do it? I believe absolutely he would do so. Could he do it? Well, with the advent of BLM, and the atmosphere of strife surrounding state police, a "federal solution" would seem warranted for the occasion. So could he, I think so.

But don't count your chickens before they hatch as the farmer says.

In fairness to Obama, though, pretty much every president since Kennedy (maybe more?) has increased presidential authority. And yes, that includes Reagan. We've not had the government effectively shrink in . . . well . . . ever, that I know of.

Alright, I concede that. For that reason, I am glad Obama was elected in 2008. We have never had more people than ever picking up history books, reading economics, the great philosophers like Bacon, Blackstone, Jefferson and reading scripture once again. We have never had more people educating themselves.

It's usually meant as a sarcastic meme, but I mean it in this case: Thanks, Obama.

[Kurieuo]

You know, the last few weeks I've been trying to distract myself from other things in life , so I've been following news, both US and Australia. After being with it a bit, I've caught many narratives that "the media" are trying to control. And it doesn't matter if it's Fox News, New York Times, even cross country between US and Australia, or even British, they altogether feed into a narrative, while they might to appear to slant against each other at times, it's like a sophisticated collaboration. Maybe it's just the culture of the media that has developed over time, and it just has become natural.

The one thing is clear: you can't trust anything in the media by any side, that is being presented especially in relation to the US election. I just can't believe the absolute rigged-ness of it all and don't know how it got that way. Thankfully, there is some light offered via independent opinions by "the people" at places like YouTube, and you can get a feel for the truth outside of any controlled narrative. But, you're still often left wondering...

But then, B.W. comes along, don't blame it on any sickness, I've seen his same sources too, and you know if you're that way leaning (conspiracy inclined), you'll be taken by such conspiracy ideas because well, you've seen all the "conspiracy" narratives in mainstream news. Where do you turn to be informed? I'm not sure it is actually possible for us to be fully informed because we depend upon being accurately informed and no one can really be trusted to do that, nothing mainstream.

YouTube, and listening to what people actually out in the world are saying, rather than traditional means of newspapers and TV (Western media), seems to be the only way to seep in the most information outside of any controlled narrative. This hasn't just made me sick for America, but sick for Australia, sick for Europeans, sick for UK sick for all whole Western world who we just thought were above the sick control of dictatorships.

Whatever is said, I really think, we're lied to left, right and centre in such elaborate ways. We bicker amongst each other how crazy a person is on the other side of some fictional narrative being controlled, they're fundamentalist loonies... and oppositely, how evil and vindictive that liberal person is being on the other side of this same fictional narrative. Yet, both aren't realising it's the actual narrative causing the division between each other is being concocted and controlled by the powers that be. It all feeds into "the game" governments have been playing, and the media who make their business off the back of these stories and stirring controversy.

Both left wings, and right wings, need to come together and just saying enough is enough. Stop accepting the spoon that's feeding the narrative and making both sides at each other's throats. If you stand back, it really is so irrational... we're all human beings and agree with basic human values, and yet both sides see each other as entirely evil, villainous and stupid. At the end of the day our real agreement is being destroyed by narratives that inspire hate for each other, stupid emotional drivel and just keeps adding petrol to the fire. "Divide and rule" seems to be the way of rule, and not just in US society but my own.

[JButler]

The prez showed his stripes right off the starting line with his personal involvement in "the police behaved stupidly" deal.

He has not passed up any chance to insert himself and federal involvement into local affairs whenever the circumstances fit his political goals. No other president has ever come close to such low level meddling. The mask came off early.

I had a year plus to watch the train wreck starting to develop in 2009-2010 at the local police level. It was one factor that lead me to jump ship into more blissful atmosphere of retirement.

[edwardmurphy]

No other president has ever come close to such low level meddling.

Citation, please.

[Jac3510]

That doesn't strike me as the kind of thing that needs citing. It is clear that the Obama administration has been very involved with local law enforcement, especially in its relation to minority communities. So I'd ask you, Leftie Eddy, do you have any examples of any presidents who have been even as remotely involved in local law enforcement as Obama has? Bush wasn't, nor was his dad. Clinton actually did, but it was largely a promotion of law enforcement, part of his "tough on crime new Dem" thing, which is one of the thing's he's being blasted for. I don't know of Reagan ever being so involved with local law enforcement, and while I'm no fan of Carter, I only found one real instance of his getting involved with local police that could look like an incursion--that was when he said we should encourage local cops to focus on violent crime rather than alcoholism (an idea I tend to agree with).

Bottom line, while you may not agree that Obama is anti-police (and I suspect, given your political bent, you wouldn't), perhaps you aren't so blinded by partisanship that you can see that he has done a LOT of stuff that have given people, including the police themselves, that impression. And I don't think you could say anything at all like that about any other POTUS. The military might be another matter, but local law enforcement? I can't think of one. At least not in modern history. But maybe you can educate us.

edit:

I will say, though, in Obama's defense that I think some of the charge is less about Obama's own meddling, or even the meddling of his administration, as it is the anti-cop tone the Left has taken more generally. And Obama very much represents and has embraced a lot of that tone, and so a good bit of the frustration here is attributed to him. But even on that more generous interpretation, I don't think you find anything that even looks like precedent for such an official attitude towards the police from modern executives.

[B. W.]

There is no secret Obama takeover of the police.

You should stop reading this smut, BW. It's bad for your health. (Literally.)

Just an interesting article open for debate, nothing more Jac... move on...

No. YOU move on!

Groovey man...

No, I have a right of free speech on an open forum to bring up whatever articles for a free thought discussion just as you have the right to criticize and post your diatribe and objections here Jac.

Have a groovey day...


-
-
-

Again Jac, why do you think their is an attack on the police starting from the White House on down to radical groups liken to BLM?

When the Titanic hit the Iceberg, it was an unsinkable ship. After all, it could not sink; therefore; no need for life boats for all... move on nothing here, don't rock boat, alarm folks on the ship. After all, all things have been going on since the beginning, no need to worry. Good night sleep well...


-
-
-