How much say should citizens, who are not law enforcement professionals, have on how police should do their jobs, what equipment to carry, etc?

[Anonymous]

Updates

+1 y

So, it is kind of a trick question, because, believe it or not, civilians do not really have too much say over many topics related to law enforcement.

•You cannot say a police officer shouldn’t own certain pistols for example.

•You can’t decide how a police department SWAT team clears a building

•You can’t even decide to not be stopped by police because you think the law you broke was petty to begin with.

There’s nearly unlimited more examples of this kind.

[Rangers]

Nothing wrong with making suggestions when someone has knowledge on the topic and understands how policing works. The problem is that we have a pandemic of dumb cucks suffering from the Dunning-Krueger effect who can't climb over Mt. Stupid.

If you don't know what that means, here's the Dunning-Krueger effect. People are screeching that officers should be willing to take a bullet in reference to situations where an officer defended themselves against a perpetrator with a gun. These people seem to think that all life is worth the same (they don't even believe that either, though), sure, the life of a perpetrator who's trying to kill innocent people is worth the same as the innocent people they're trying to kill (sarcasm). And the fact that they don't even hesitate to run towards the sound of gunshots proves that they are willing to stop a bullet with their bodies if need be, but not so that a violent offender can claim another victim in the officer, and they should defend themselves in that situation.

Oftentimes a myth is pushed that policing started with slave patrols but this is 100% false as the so called "slave patrol" people were not enforcing the law, they were private contractors hired by people who owned slaves. Policing actually started with civilians being assigned as nightwatchers as a part time job or as volunteers and they would "arrest" if you will, people who were being violent or unruly.

This worked as well as can be expected so they realized they really needed professionals to enforce existing laws to bring peace and security to society. It eventually led to the first full time police force being created in Boston in 1838. But wait, slavery still existed! Wrong, Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1783. Say it still happened, okay well it was illegal and not protected under the law, so no, the Boston police department wasn't made to go after slaves who just wanted to be free.

But if you tell any of this to the BLM crowd, they'll either say you're racist or look at you like you have two heads, these people are stuck on Mt. Stupid.

[OlderAndWiser]

I think most members of the public are totally uninformed on this subject and would make decisions on the basis of emotions rather than logic and experience.

[sage2021]

In reflection, when George Floyd was murdered, the citizens were very vocal screaming at the cop to stop. The cop paid no attention to them. I'm so glad that teenage girls video is what put him behind bars. So, I think this is an example of what the people say should matter.

[SaoirseS]

Total, just like there is and should be civilian control of the military, so must there be civilian control and oversight of law enforcement agencies.

[Rangers]

They do, it's called internal affairs, what you seem to be talking about is everyday people who don't understand policy, the laws and how policing works.

[SaoirseS]

Yes, I am talking about the general public. Yes they should have considerable say and sway in the functions, policies, and equipping of their police departments just like any other function of government. Internal Affairs/Internal Review for policing within the department is one thing, and is typically incident related. Any branch/department/agency of government that is taxpayer funded needs to be held accountable to the public it serves through outside oversight, and the police are no exception. Usually the public oversight is done sufficiently through their elected officials like city attorneys, mayors' offices, and city counsels, but the public does have a say so in it. But the public has a right, if not a duty, to lean in on their police to make changes when needed such as police practices that endanger the public. It's where the money comes from. The notion that the police are the protectors of blind stupid sheep (and some arrogantly take that attitude, but fortunately not where I live) who aren't police and need to sit in a corner and color is absurd. Laws and policies are publicly available for anyone who wants to read them. And if you see the entry level requirements in a lot of police departments and the amount of training they actually get, policing really isn't rocket science.

[SaoirseS]

Re Update:
What are you really getting at?
Remember who controls the purse strings.

[Asker]

@SaoirseS

I’m simply talking about how we do not have as much say over the specificity of how professionals do their jobs.

We place our trust in them, based on their training, experience, and education that they have the right tools to do the jobs that they are in. This is why there are rigorous selective processes in place to select the right men & women to go through the appropriate training.

Whether it’s policing, firefighting, dentistry, doctoring, etc.

Nearly all of these fields are funded by, in one way or another, by our taxes.

[SaoirseS]

@EmbraceThePain. In most cases we don’t get into the weeds on how they do the job until it gets called into question. In case you haven’t noticed, public trust in the police has eroded considerably over the past few years and in many locales (mine included) the public is getting more involved and exerting more influence. Savvy police chiefs understand and appreciate why, and understand the need to fix their shit in places. On equipment, the public does have a say in the acquisition of equipment. It will go along with reasonable requests to provide for safety of officers and the public, but we recently rejected several requests for “tacticool” upgrades and new purchases. Recruitment standards are uneven, but are generally low. Retention standards are worse given the number of morbidly obese police officers I see.

[Asker]

So, from the sources I’ve seen, the majority of citizens do support law enforcement, with a rather vocal minority making it seem as if everyone & their grandmother is in some way disapproving or against law enforcement.

In the places where the public is getting more involved/exerting more influence, I feel 1) these government leaders are weak and 2 ) the politics in these areas are opposed to law enforcement (defund the police types).

So, you see leaders catering or bending the knee to a vocal minority of raging and passionate voices.

A lot of these places have experienced great growth in crime and many common sense folk have called these “leaders” out and given the initiate back and given their support to law enforcement.

In short, people do not have as much control or say in how things are done in law enforcement, what tactics to do, etc.

Now, this isn’t to say people have absolutely zero say, just that they don’t have as much say as they think they do.

[SaoirseS]

Go back to your original question. - how much say SHOULD citizens have….. You have my answer. Fact of the matter is citizens get as much say as they insist on having in all aspects of policing. Where I live we definitely exercise it. The pros from Dover argument plays nowhere.

[lightbulb27]

almost none. the only say should be when they signup for training, go on tours with police (as I did), and do the job for a while. A simple solution is to have a police "draft" for 1 year of service, no pay... about 4 hour a week... all citizens... no gun, just mace and a billy club at most. Most can do that... for the good of their country.

Then they can have an opinion.

There's a reason police are the way they are, there are screwed up stressed out broken people in every job. What are we going to do about improving that while managing real crime ranging from parking offenses to trafficking in humans?

The citizens need disciplined FIRST. Without that, policing is a mess.

[ShadezMcgee]

While I feel they shouldn't have a say in how to do a job, I feel they have a say in how they can come together as a community to solve problems in a realistic and logical way with what they have in terms of support be it joint and budgeting.

Much like the military, unless you have worn the uniform or are in that line of work, you should hold your tongue, because it is not an easy job. It is a hard job both physically, mentally, emotionally and on a knowledge point, and to top it off dangerous. It's not easy to be a cop.

[LDN924853]

The below summed up:
hold police accountable.

What is used and protocols of what is needed before moving up the line in scenarios should be voted locally and reviewed anually as it would be very different in many places but this would be a minor form not in depth. Second paid leave abolished. Single strike policy (found in wrong be removed from the force) and public reports, opinon and conplaints went through with a fine tooth comb. Multiple reports on an officer of the same type should lead to being fired.

[Tjw78]

The community should have 100% say over what laws will be enforced, what equipment is purchased, etc. They are supposed to be public servants paid by the community's tax dollars. If they are employees of the community, the community should have full control over law enforcement, not the other way around.

[saffoler]

Complete, otherwise you end up living in a police state. Law enforcement is a part of the government; which serves the people. When the people are unable to have a say in any aspect of the government you will inevitably have tyranny.

[tartaarsaus]

Total. Law enforcement is the enforcement arm of the elected government, which is subjected to the democratic will of the electorate.


Now, should legislation and such be drafted keeping in mind the views of experts and those in the industry? Yes. But the public has an inherent right to demand and vote in public policy, even if it is bad policy.

[BraveRiver]

None. Police are a symptom of the laws our society asked for. The only way the public should have a say is by voting for like minded representation who will have laws added or taken away.

Police’ing would be easy if there were no laws for them to enforce….

What most of you want is a police force that pick and choose what laws they enforce and who they enforce it on. Change the laws.

[vald9inches]

Police serve us thus we are directly affected by the way they are trained thus it makes us an expert in how police should be trained in serving us. Unless of course police are just attack dogs for the wealthy which is most likely the case in corporate capitalist America

[Guy13]

ZERO Opinion unless they want to go to work with them for a month ‼️

[Themostabsurd]

Has to be a balance. I'm not comfortable leaving it entirely up to defense contractors who would arm every police force with tanks, rocket launchers and God knows what else. Nor do I think it should be decided by hysterical idiots who don't know the definition of "Semi automatic" and want to ban firearms based on how "scary" they look.

[WhiteSteve]

Law enforcement officers are servants of the people. So I’d say it’s up to “the people” how they wish to be served by those folks.

[Heiniken]

Average officer should not carry guns. Only advanced tactical units should. That would fix a lot of issues. Will cops die more often? Yes. Will it be better for society? Yes.

[OneNineZero]

Depends on the country ,,
USA police officers are like military personal
Where as Indian police officers only have a stick it's a wooden stick it will break if it's hit hard

[exitseven]

I say none. What does the average soccer mom know about what a cop needs to use during his shift?

[DARKCLOUD1945X]

Should only be said after they have worked the job for six months and only then should they open their mouths about what police should or should not do other than that they are not qualified to offer an opinion since they are not qualified to do so

[normalice]

100% as citizens are the owners of the police force.

[Juxtapose]

Fuck man, I think having a rat tell police what to do would be more productive than whatever the fuck they're doing

[SmokinAces2000]

They should have a lot of say, we are the ones that they are supposed to be “protecting” so we should have a say on how they operate against us

[TallAnon]

Law enforcement is part of the government, we decide who runs the government and it should definitely stay that way. So, full democratic control.

[Contra1166]

on the local level at the civilians should have a significant say, if they didn't it wouldn't be land of the free would it.

[spiralshape]

None or else they get 💣💣💣💣 ALWAYS RESPECT THE THIN BLUE LINE 🟦🟦🟦🟦

[OddBeMe]

A lot id say. I want them to not have control over their body cams.

[Jouth]

People with the expertise to make these decisions need to be the ones who make these decisions.

[Blackcupcake]

a lot because they’re also affected by it

[jshm2]

All of it should be accountable.

[Still-alive]

if you don't have that who will police the police?

[SaoirseS]

Exactly right.

[Dargil]

None, except elected and appointed officials.

[Aburgre]

If they fallow the oath it comes naturally.

[Pterodon]

Zero

[JamesRandiDebates]

100% say.