Posted on 12/08/2016 11:25:54 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee
Despite the hue and cry from some, the election of Donald Trump as President will have a positive effect on policing and citizen safety in America. And it will not, in my opinion, decrease Americans’ civil rights.
I believe the No. 1 civil right is to be free from harm. Though broad historical trends remain positive, we’re in the midst of an increase in violent crime, and more Americans are now dying from drug overdoses than from automobile accidents.
With smart and aggressive local policing — encouraged by policies set by Washington, and by an example set by federal law enforcement — we can turn the tide.
For eight years, the Obama administration’s Department of Justice has waged a war on police. The focus has been on criminal justice reform instead of modeling intelligent strategies to push crime reduction. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Headline shortened
Phone and a Pen! Magic Wand!
Undoing a consent decree will take a bit more than that.
A judge will have to sign-off on dropping it.
Eminently doable though.
NO! Security is mostly an illusion. It just depends on how you judge it according to time! Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness runs the gamut. Our founders were genius. It ain't getting any better!
Walking the beat more and driving the black-and-white less will have an positive impact as well.
I received some criticism a while back for trying to figure out some way for Trump’s idea of a national death penalty for cop killers to become law. I understand the federal overreach problems, but there is an ongoing war against our police and they’re getting murdered now almost daily.
IMHO, the only way to stop it is deterrence, and anyone who kills a cop should know that their justice will involve a dirt nap. If it still happens in some cases, we’ll at least have done everything we could.
Bet this is where the centrist aspect of Donald Trump will show, and many reforms will NOT be “un-reformed.”
Trump isn’t going to risk a split enough to really do that.
Didn’t see it in the article, so what exactly does a “consent decree” do?
But here’s another scenario, kind of out of “Black Sheep Squadron.” Those who did it will be spared on condition that they volunteer and serve satisfactorily for highly risky missions, including that of negotiating with dangerous holed-up fugitives.
so what exactly does a “consent decree” do?....Put your hands up where I can see them or I consent to blow your ass away! Understood?
The more free your are, the more you accept personal responsibility for more of your life.
The government wants you to be dependent on them, which is why leftist States virtually deny Conceal Carry permits to all but a chosen few.
Trump needs to hire a couple of young lawyers and set them to work going every ever damn thing Holder and Lynch have done, and what it will take to un-do it, if needed. When they’re done with that, the can start working backward because Bush and Clinton’s DOJs weren’t a hell of a lot better.
True. But till then, the DOJ can just give its consent to what the police departments need.
The article highlights a problem, but the author’s solutions are foolish. The federal government really has no business trying to manage local law enforcement at all.
If local law enforcement is violating civil rights, then charge those who are doing it and put them in jail. Other than that, mind your own business.
Technically, you could just pass that as a federal law, but it is almost a certainty that federal courts would strike it down, because they tightly regulate capital offenses.
“I believe the No. 1 civil right is to be free from harm.”
And that should include being free from abuse by Law Enforcement as well. Cops can’t continue in their current numbers, members who justify abusing citizens as being a part “of keeping themselves safe!” At the end of the day, both the cops and the citizens are “less safe” if the bulk of those in each groups distrusts the those in the other. Being polite to one another should always be the starting point for any interaction. Having “control” should not mean getting to abuse.
“Consent decree” is another one of those Orwellian terms that the Left love so much. It’s when some community activists complain against a government agency, and they get a judge, and rather than the judge telling them (the activists) to go pound sand, he’ll get the government agency to “consent” to most of what the activists want, in order to spare them (the agency) from having to suffer through a long, drawn-out trial, at the end of which they’d be forced to do all of whatever it was that the activists wanted.
Consent decrees are legally binding, and they’re generally a bad deal for anyone on the opposite side from the activists. They are usually enforceable for a pre-set length of time (which can be years) before they expire. The court will sometimes appoint a “special master” (which is as ominous as it sounds) to make sure it gets enforced as strictly as the activists want it.
I don’t actually know how to get rid of one before it expires, unless the judge who imposed it can un-impose it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.