Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hypothetically of course....if it would make black Americans feel safer....with black police officers patrolling their neighborhoods....what laws would Americans need to change so that could begin to happen....and what would we need to do to offer black police officers a $25,000 a year bonus to work in a black neighborhood?

.....and of course putting aside all of the legal problems that would create when white police officers file suit for discrimination.:)

If you can stop laughing long enough to respond to one of the craziest ideas you have ever heard....it would be greatly appreciated.

I believe a lot of white Americans could get behind something like that.

Respectfully

Bean
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I can just imagine the bajillion red flags going off in your mind....

.....so lets say hypothetically in an alternate universe.:)

Bean
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I believe a lot of white Americans could get behind something like that.


For starters, you've got to stop saying things like this. We aren't on teams.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Hypothetically of course....if it would make black Americans feel safer....with black police officers patrolling their neighborhoods....what laws would Americans need to change so that could begin to happen....and what would we need to do to offer black police officers a $25,000 a year bonus to work in a black neighborhood?

You'd probably need to amend or repeal the 14th Amendment, and of course the relevant provisions of the Civil Rights Act governing employment discrimination.

Of course, I think the premise of your question is flawed. There are far deeper problems with policing in the U.S. than the racial composition of the patrol officers. The problem is systemic, not individual. There are a number of factors that make it far too easy for the police to use force, including deadly force, in situations that don''t warrant it. These include strong police unions that shelter police from accountability, laws shielding police records from public scrutiny, lack of civilian oversight over police disciplinary actions, legal presumptions against liability for police misconduct, etc.

Taken together, these institutional factors mean that citizens have very few systemic protections against police misconduct. Which means that it is very dangerous for people to interact with the police unless they individually have resources to protect themselves against police misconduct - typically wealth or status in the community. And those things correlate to race pretty strongly in our society.

So poor communities get policed harshly, while middle-class and wealthy communities get policed more gently. And because there's such a strong correlation between wealth and race in this country, that means that you get a strong correlation between harsh policing and race as well.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hi Albaby,

I agree with your assessment of the difficulties of overcoming the systemic problems in our police forces. I suspect we will have to reconstitute protective forces based on different principles, which will be difficult.

My question is, what are the legal barriers to requiring employees to live within the borders of the protected district, city or county. I'm not referring to enforcement of the requirement, which I know is daunting, and I know that it is allowed to be enforced for very high level employees, but what about rank and file?

The reason I'm asking is that I have always lived in cities, and have been told several times by police in different places that I should move out to the 'burbs if I wanted to be safe. It occurs to me that most of the cops I see are terrified of the people they are paid to protect, are uncomfortable with their piercings and tattoos, their strange hair color and, most of all, their politics. This can't be good for me and my neighbors. I know that there are barriers to entering the force in terms of grooming requirements, etc, but those can be removed. I'd love to know that the cops that come to my door are like-minded people.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My question is, what are the legal barriers to requiring employees to live within the borders of the protected district, city or county. I'm not referring to enforcement of the requirement, which I know is daunting, and I know that it is allowed to be enforced for very high level employees, but what about rank and file?

Kansas City, MO police department has this requirement. I can't imagine a legal impediment to implementing such a rule for any department, at least for new hires who know the condition of their employment before accepting the job.

I'm certain that very few KCMO officers live in any of the more dangerous neighborhoods, but they are at least in the city.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thanks, Albaby, good to know.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My question is, what are the legal barriers to requiring employees to live within the borders of the protected district, city or county. I'm not referring to enforcement of the requirement, which I know is daunting, and I know that it is allowed to be enforced for very high level employees, but what about rank and file?

I don't know that there are any legal barriers to doing that - but there are enormous practical barriers to doing so, especially in smaller cities or very expensive cities.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't know that there are any legal barriers to doing that - but there are enormous practical barriers to doing so, especially in smaller cities or very expensive cities.

Agreed. Also, making sure that the officers indeed reside in the city. One city I lived in dropped the requirement years ago because there were so many cheaters who used dummy addresses, etc. It's bad form to hire officers who lie easily, so best not to challenge them. It is incumbent on cities to pay officers enough to fulfill the requirement. Maybe it should be like a military base or parsonage system, where the officers move into homes in the neighborhoods where they can live for free. If the force shrinks sufficiently, it might be doable.

So many city neighborhoods look pretty stable demographically, but in fact are transient stop-offs for residents who move on to 'burbs to raise the kids, or retirement communities in the Sun Belt, to be replaced by others moving in from their last stop. Potential officers are no different. In addition, while officers tend to try to stay with the same organization through to retirement, most people, including their spouses, change jobs multiple times. If the officer has to move to a new jurisdiction, it can be very hard financially as they basically start from scratch at the new place. These are all issues that are correctable, but will take time to work through the government bureaucracy and will be resisted by the police unions. That is why defunding and replacement is so attractive to me.

I wonder if we made it easier for officers to transfer between departments if some of the problems we see will disappear even without a residency requirement. How much corruption and misconduct depends on a lifetime of compromises and quid pro quo's built up among a stable group of officers? It would require a more standardized evaluation system so public safety organizations can assure they're not getting a problem officer, but it might also lead to a more professional force.

Lots to consider...
Print the post Back To Top