Search This Blog

27 July 2016

Campaign Zero: Restrict the Cops and Nobody Dies



By Sam Frescoe

Welcome to the next installment of Sam’s Estimate. Sam’s Estimate is an evaluation, assessment, or appraisal of a particular issue, organization, or topic. Typically, items of interest are selected from the current American discourse; however, some are selected otherwise. The Estimate attempts to combine facts and philosophy in a thoughtful manner.
·         Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
·         Perspective: a particular attitude toward, or way of regarding, something; a point of view
·         Fact: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
·         Philosophy: pursuit of wisdom; an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
Sam’s Estimate offers the opinions and perspectives of the author. Facts are cited and philosophy is championed as mechanisms to inform those opinions and perspectives. While the rigor demonstrated by The Estimate is not satisfactory for a comprehensive defense, this post is not intended to declare a matter “settled.” The intention is to be thought provoking in a grounded manner. – Sam Frescoe

From the American Discourse
This is the fourth of four planned Estimate segments focused on Black Lives Matter. This post is based on the following BLM connected publications (12 July 2016): Campaign Zero.
 

Getting Started
This post presents the Assessment in the following order: BLUF, sentiment, the Assessment, and supporting comments. This post attempts to estimate the impact of BLM’s Campaign Zero.
There are bulleted statements throughout the post that contain my thoughts, opinions and perspectives. Additionally, to better understand the breadth and depth of particular phrases and sets of statements as a whole, I employ an examination of synonyms; and then, attempt to reconstruct the spirit and intent of the original thoughts using those synonyms. This is not an attempt to put words in their mouths; whereas, an attempt to understand their thoughts.

Side Note – Start
It is assumed that conclusions from prior Estimates hold for this Estimate.
·         BLM believes black people experience physical violence sanctioned by the government.
·         BLM believes black people experience political, economic, and social violence sanctioned by the government; and, black people are powerless to stand against that violence.
·         BLM is popular, active, appealing, and dangerous.
·         BLM is angry, virtue signals, injudicious, racist, sexist, and politically progressive
·         BLM is a contradiction and is disingenuous, a racist movement, a sexist movement, a disruptive movement, a separatist social-political movement, a homosexual-phobic organization, and is illogical.
Side Note – End  

Bottom Line Up Front
·         Champaign Zero is a policy platform/agenda associated with BLM
·         Champaign Zero intends to leverage executive powers of Federal and State institutions and authorities
·         Champaign Zero is exclusively focused on regulating policing practices

Popular Sentiment
“Indeed, in America there is a strange and powerful belief that if you stab a black person ten times, the bleeding stops and the healing begins the moment the assailant drops the knife. We believe white dominance to be a fact of the inert past, a delinquent debt that can be made to disappear if only we don’t look.” [1] – Ta-Nehisi Coates
“It was the last day of school, and I was walking with my dad, preparing to leave. Suddenly, he paused, looked at me intently and said, ‘Son, you’re a black male, and that’s two strikes against you.’ To the general public, anything that I did would be perceived as malicious and deserving of severe punishment and I had to govern myself accordingly. I was seven years old.” [2] – Jazmine Hughes
“We’ll probably have to have a few uncomfortable conversations to sort of get things right, so everybody can walk and enjoy America like it’s supposed to be enjoyed.” [3] – Jamie Foxx
“Also, police lives matter. We have to maintain law and order. Without the presence of the police, we would be lost. We would destroy ourselves without them.” “So I definitely see a value in them. But we need to clean up both the communities and the police force.” [4] – Arthur Reed (aka Silky Slim) Slim is the former leader of Baton Rouge, Louisiana’s Southside Wrecking Crew and an ex-high-ranking Crip.
“When people say ‘Black Lives Matter,’” Obama said, “that doesn’t mean blue lives don’t matter.” [5] – President Obama

Sam’s Assessment
1.    Champaign Zero is a platform of policy proposals intended to change law enforcement behavior using Federal and State institutions and authorities.
a.    Acceptance of restricting officers suspected of misconduct or wrong-doing.
b.    Assumes police violence against black actors is always unacceptable.
2.    Champaign Zero is associated with BLM as an agenda for realizing BLM objectives (ex: “…reforming structural issues…” with law enforcement).
a.    Champaign Zero desires to correct perceived shortfalls of American society by correcting the institutions of that society. In this case, policing.
b.    Champaign Zero demands outcome-based equality.
3.    Champaign Zero presents itself as an authority on policing in America.
a.    Routine presentation of claims as facts without supporting evidence.
b.    Champaign Zero holds police departments to blame for all deaths at the hands of officers, exclusively and without exception.
c.    Direct association with President Obama indicates political popularity.

Side Note – Start
What factors must be present to create a criminal situation?” – 1) Law labeling behavior as criminal (government actor); 2) Law enforcement (government actor); 3) Opportunity for criminality (any actor); 4) Person that behaves criminally (any actor); 5) Profit/Benefit to such behavior (any actor).
What factors must be present for a police killing?” – 1) a police officer; 2) a suspect/subject; 3) the act of killing; 4) motivation to kill.
Side Note – End 

COA-1: If Champaign Zero can claim victories for improving “freedom and liberty” for blacks, then it is highly likely that BLM will seek to realize additional political ends. Given the association of Champaign Zero with BLM, and that BLM adheres to its Manifesto and Guiding Principles, then it seems reasonable that BLM will likely continue pressing its position within modern discourse. Examples may include the following.
a.    Increase media popularity; Increase acceptance by moderate groups (ex: Evangelical Christians); Increase recruiting of resentful people groups.
b.    Embrace racism: Promote blacks issues as more legitimate than non-black issues; Increase virtue signaling; Increase rhetoric against society at large; Blame entrenched “white supremacy” as a root cause.
c.    Embrace sexism: Reduce role of males in authority positions; Promote plight of black women; Seek to normalize LGBTQ behavior; Reduce traditional family constructs; Leverage premise of white supremacy regardless of issue.
d.    Promote collective outcomes: Continue to demand changing societal institutions over changing cultural expectations; Continue to segregate itself from norms while demanding authorities embrace radical views as common; Embrace international law as acceptable American law; Seek to bypass legislative processes by executive action or judicial ruling.
Campaign Zero
Champaign Zero is a policy platform that advocates the belief that “We can live in a world where the police don't kill people by limiting police interventions, improving community interactions, and ensuring accountability.”[1] To that end, the platform is calling for “deliberate action from policy-makers at all levels of government to implement these policy solutions.” [2]
Champaign Zero is described by the Huffington Post[3] as a “set of policy demands on the federal and state level introduced by Black Lives Matter activists” and a “detailed list of specific proposals that they want to bring about “a world where the police don’t kill people.” The Huffington Post stated that the policy platform aims to reform existing structural issues with policing and put in place new systems that will end police violence against black Americans. Champaign Zero claims each proposal is informed by discussions with protesters from across the country and the recommendations of President Barack Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing.
Champaign Zero is connected to BLM.
·         NPR reports that activists in the Black Lives Matter movement have answered critics who have asked for specific policy proposals. A group in the movement published a 10-point agenda to reduce police violence in this country. The plan is called "Campaign Zero." [4]
·         The Washington Post reported that the leaders of Black Lives Matter released a series of policy solutions to address police killings, excessive force, profiling and racial discrimination, and other problems in law enforcement, called “Campaign Zero.” [5]
Champaign Zero seems to have been founded by four individuals, The Planning Team: @nettaaaaaaaa, @deray, @samswey, and @MsPackyetti. [6] Review of their associated biographies reveals the following: two are protesters, two are teachers, one is a data analyst, all are Millennials, all are black, all are associated with urban center issues, three achieved celebrity notoriety as a result of Ferguson, and one graduated from Stanford having studied how race and racism impact the U.S. political system.
Champaign Zero is popular with national politics and is associated with President Obama. Referencing the picture below, Brittany Packnett (left) of Campaign Zero meets with President Barack Obama, Rep. John Lewis, Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and Rev. Al Sharpton at the White House to discuss race relations on Feb. 18, 2016.[7]


Framing by Campaign Zero
Frame-1: “More than one thousand people are killed by police every year in America.” [9] – Hasty Generalization – Given the lack of finite constraints (“every year”), and lack of data source citation(s); then it is reasonable to call this claim into question. Data from government and non-government sources seems to be limited and mismatched. The Google query, “FBI people killed by police per year”, did return government and non-government sources.[10] Reporting FBI-based data seemed to focus on justifiable homicides and officer homicides; whereas, non-government sites seemed to focus on total numbers. Examples include: 1) Think Progress reporting 1186 deaths in 2015.[11] 2) KilledByPolice.net reports 773 deaths in 2013, 1111 in 2014, and 1208 in 2015.[12] Both non-government sites claim to use news reports as a data collection source.
Frame-2: “Nearly sixty percent of victims did not have a gun or were involved in activities that should not require police intervention such as harmless "quality of life" behaviors or mental health crises.” [13] – Hasty Generalization – Given the lack of finite constraints (“nearly sixty”, “should not”, “harmless”, “quality of life” behaviors, mental health crises), lack of data source citation(s), and lack of determination criteria; then it is reasonable to call this claim into question. If the claim is informed by data, then the large use of imprecise language suggests hasty generalizations are being passed as factual.
Frame-3: “We can live in an America where the police do not kill people. Police in England, Germany, Australia, Japan, and even cities like Buffalo, NY, and Richmond, CA, demonstrate that public safety can be ensured without killing civilians.” [14] 
     Hasty Generalization – Simple Google searching produces open source information suggesting the claim is false (killings reported in England [15] and Germany[16] in 2015; no data was found for Australia or Japan; officer killings were reported for NY [17] and CA [18] in 2016).
     Stacked Evidence – Because policing reflects human nature as tempered by cultural values, it should be noted that by comparing America with England, Germany, Australia, Japan, and specific cities in NY and CA assumes that each respective set of cultural values is identical, or capable of becoming identical enough, to realize a desired output of human nature. In this case, police not killing people. The claim does not address the issues of human nature, cultural definitions of criminality, policing practices, or any other similar factors.
Frame-4: A comprehensive package of urgent policy solutions - informed by data, research and human rights principles - can change the way police serve our communities. [19] 
     False Authority – Reference The Planning Team composition. It does not hold that Champaign Zero has policing expertise simply because it claims to be “informed by data, research and human rights principles.”
     Hasty Generalization – Campaign Zero does not specify data sources, research results, or human rights principles. Their web site does offer summary data; however, links to raw data sets, data acquisition procedures, original questions, statistical analysis procedures, or acknowledgement of biases.

Side Note – Start
The result of a Google search generally suggests that human rights principles, as a concept of governance, are associated with the United Nations. The definition of each principle is stated at the end of this post under the Critical Terms heading.
Side Note – End  

Campaign Zero Areas of Interest

Objective-1: End policing of minor “broken windows” offenses.
Proposal-1a: Decriminalize these activities or de-prioritize their enforcement: Consumption of Alcohol on Streets, Marijuana Possession, Disorderly Conduct, Trespassing, Loitering, Disturbing the Peace (including Loud Music), Spitting, Jaywalking, and Bicycling on the Sidewalk. Champaign Zero does constrain the proposal to “activities do not threaten public safety.” [1]
Side Note – Start
False Authority – Champaign Zero does not define any activity, does not explain how any activity does not pose a threat to public safety, and does not define the scope of public safety.
False Authority – “Broken Windows” Theory is not defined. An abbreviated discussion is at the end of this post under the Critical Terms heading.
For the purpose of argument, I assume the phrase “do not threaten public safety” to mean those activities/behaviors do not realize harm to persons or property not lawfully possessed by the actor. In this context, I agree that there are circumstances that should not be criminalized: simple possession of property and minding your own business. However, I disagree with disregarding minor misconduct all together. Example-1: Disturbing the Peace should be addressed by simple dispersal. Example-2: Trespassing (the unauthorized entry upon any facility, installation or real property[2]) is a violation of property rights, and the actor(s) should be subject to arrest.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-2: Establish enforceable protections against profiling to prevent police from intervening in civilian lives for no reason other than the "suspicion" of their blackness or other aspects of their identity.
Proposal-2a: Policies supporting the objective should include: [3]
·                  immigration status, age, housing status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, disability, HIV status, race, religion and national origin as protected groups
·                  the right for people to seek court orders to stop police departments from profiling
·                  bans on both intentional profiling and practices that have a disparate impact on protected groups
·                  ban stops for "furtive" movements such as a reaching for waistband or acting nervous
·                  ban stops for being in a high-crime area
·                  ban stops for matching a generalized description of a suspect (i.e. black male ages 15-25)
·                  require officers to establish objective justification for making a stop and to report every stop including location, race, gender, whether force was used and whether a firearm was found
·                  end the use of predictive policing technology, which uses systematically biased data to enhance police profiling of black people and communities
Side Note – Start
False Authority, Lack of Definition – Profiling refers to the law enforcement practice of the detention, interdiction, or other disparate treatment of an individual on the basis of the racial or ethnic status of such individual.[4]
False Authority – Probable Cause: sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime. Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant, search without a warrant, or seize property in the belief the items were evidence of a crime. The SCOTUS upheld the Totality of Circumstances standard that focuses "on all the circumstances of a particular case, rather than any one factor" [Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)].
I agree that the presumption of innocence and equal protection under the law must be robustly upheld and accorded to all citizens. Additionally, I agree that police forces should be deployed to address demonstrated behaviors versus forecasted behaviors.
I strongly disagree with dismantling profiling to such a degree. First, criminal actors have one or more of the listed features, attributes, or behaviors. Second, “protected groups” represent the definition of discrimination (one people group is placed at a higher or lower, more or less favorable, status relative to others). Example: A criminal actor is not caught in the act. However, the description is a white (race) male (gender), age 20-30 (age), homeless (housing), transgendered (identity) homosexual (orientation), wheelchair bound (disability), AIDS patient (HIV), Christian (religion), here illegally from Canada (immigration), and likely hiding a knife ("furtive" movements). But, the proposal is in full effect; and now, police are not allowed to “suspect” anyone that fits the description.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-3: Establish Alternative Approaches to Mental Health Crises
Proposal-3a: Mental health crises should not be an excuse for heavy-handed police interventions and are best handled by mental health professionals. Establish and fund Mental Health Response Teams to respond to crisis situations. [5]
Side Note – Start
False Authority, Lack of Definition – Again…there is lack of definition. What is a “mental health crisis”? Some examples of mental health crises include depression, trauma, eating disorders, alcohol or substance abuse, self-injury and suicidal thoughts. If you suspect a friend or family member is experiencing an emotional crisis, your help can make a difference.[6] Sometimes, these changes happen suddenly and obviously. Events such as a natural disaster or the loss of a job can bring on a crisis in a short period of time. Often, though, behavior changes come about gradually. [7]
There is an assumption that use of Team is appropriate. However, given the definition, how could an officer make that determination? Why is there no exception for self-defense of the officer (per the human rights principles)?
In general, I agree that, when possible, use of such a Team could solve problems as way to demonstrate service before enforcement.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-4: Establish effective civilian oversight structures
Proposal-4a: Establish an all-civilian oversight structure with discipline power that includes a Police Commission and Civilian Complaints Office. [8]
 Concerning the Police Commission…[9]
Side Note – Start
I agree that because policing is a public institution, and that the public is expected to support and comply with its officers; therefore, the public should be proactively informed of policies, practices, and procedures. And, that officers demonstrating misconduct should be disciplined and/or dismissed.
I agree that hearings should be public, as with other hearings; however, a public hearing is not appropriate if doing so puts operations or operators in undue jeopardy.
I agree that membership should not be extended to those currently serving in law enforcement.
I disagree with appointment of a Police Chief. Because policing encompasses social leadership and governance monopoly of force, the Chief of Police should be an elected position. A commission should vet candidates and report their findings. The Chief should answer to the Mayor and the public.
I disagree with the proposed scope of executive authority. It is a conflict of interest for executive governing bodies to be empowered to hire, terminate, investigate, and discipline at will.
I disagree with the training requirement. What is trained by whom?
I disagree with the proposed membership qualifications. Members should not be selected from candidates offered by community organizations. Doing so is a deliberate effort to circumvent the will of voters; and it would incentivize policing to increasingly political; and it would prompt campaigning outside public view.
Side Note – Stop 
Concerning the Civilian Complaints Office…[10]
Side Note – Start
I agree that mandating a complaints resolution process, supporting components, and reporting is favorable.
I disagree with the proposed scope of executive authority. It is a conflict of interest for executive governing bodies to be empowered to hire, terminate, investigate, and discipline at will. It is a conflict of interest for an investigative body acting as ombudsmen to also act as a public policy think tank affecting its own policies. It is a conflict of interest for an investigative body to act in a judiciary capacity (ex: find quilt, levy penalties, decide cases, etc.).
I disagree with the proposed membership qualifications. Members should not be selected from candidates offered by community organizations. Doing so is a deliberate effort to circumvent the will of voters; and it would incentivize policing to become increasingly political; and it would prompt campaigning outside public view.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-5: Remove barriers to reporting police misconduct
Proposal-5a: For all stops by a police officer, require officers to give civilians their name, badge number, reason for the stop and a card with instructions for filing a complaint to the civilian oversight structure. [11]
Side Note – Start
I agree. Reason for the stop should be provided in common terms and include a direct reference to the law in question.
Side Note – Stop
Objective-6: Establish standards and reporting of police use of deadly force
Proposal-6a: Authorize deadly force only when there is an imminent threat to an officer's life or the life of another person and such force is strictly unavoidable to protect life as required under International Law. [12]
Side Note – Start
I strongly disagree. The United States is a sovereign nation AND not a subject of any other law. I absolutely reject the premise that international law is suitable for American policing because it’s international law. Additionally, I reject the minor premise that the Federal government is appropriate for governing local policing on the grounds of the Tenth Amendment.
Side Note – Stop

Proposal-6b: Require that an officer's tactical conduct and decisions leading up to using deadly force be considered in judgements of whether such force was reasonable. [13]
Side Note – Start
I agree.
Side Note – Stop

Proposal-6c: Require officers give a verbal warning, when possible, before using deadly force and give subjects a reasonable amount of time to comply with the warning. [14]
Side Note – Start
I agree.
Side Note – Stop

Proposal-6d: Require reporting of police killings or serious injuries of civilians. [15]
Side Note – Start
I agree.
Side Note – Stop

Proposal-6e: Require the names of both the officer(s) involved and victim(s) to be released within 72 hours of a deadly force incident. [16]
Side Note – Start
I disagree. This information should be released during the course of public hearings and/or a trail held in a court of law.
Side Note – Stop

Proposal-6f: Policies should include guidance on reporting, investigation, discipline, and accountability and increase transparency by making the policies available online. [17]
Side Note – Start
False Authority, Lack of Definition – AGAIN…define human rights.
I agree with scope of policy guidance, the preference of de-escalation, and view of belligerent behavior not warranting use of force (ex: talking back, actions not presenting harm to officers or other persons).
I disagree with weaponry proposal. Because society sends officers into harm’s way intentionally, society is morally obligated to provide the means to deter and/or answer and defeat expected threats.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-7: End traffic-related police killings and dangerous high-speed police chases
Proposal-7a: Prohibit police officers from: shooting at moving vehicles; moving in front of moving vehicles; high-speed chases of people who have not and are not about to commit a violent felony. [18]
Side Note – Start
I agree. Reduction of potential harm from officers unto the public should be reduced as a matter of local policy.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-8: Monitor how police use force and proactively hold officers accountable for excessive force
Proposal-8a: Report all uses of force to a database with information on related injuries and demographics of the victims. [19]
Side Note – Start
False Authority, Lack of Definition – AGAIN…define use of force.
False Authority, Lack of Definition – AGAIN…define victim. Why should a recipient of force be classified as a victim (casualty, sufferer, injured quarry) by default?
Side Note – Stop

Proposal-8b: Establish an early intervention system to correct officers who use excessive force. [20]
Side Note – Start
Who make abuse determination? What is the remedy available to the accused for settling unjust losses or harms? What is the punishment for those who approved unjust decisions?
Side Note – Stop

Objective-10: Require police departments to notify the state when an officer is found to have willfully violated department policy or the law, committed official misconduct, or resigned while under investigation for these offenses.
Proposal-10a: Maintain this information in a database accessible to the public and prohibit these officers from serving as police officers, teachers or other governmental employees. [21]
Side Note – Start
False Authority, Lack of Definition – AGAIN…define state. Does this mean a State government or the Federal government?
I agree that 1) guilty verdicts should be publicly recorded. 2) After convection, there is a loss of future LE opportunity.
I disagree that a public database for wrong-doing must provide suspected wrong-doing. This presents opportunity to use those resources in an unjust manner. Due process and the presumption of innocence must be maintained.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-11: Lower the standard of proof for Department of Justice civil rights investigations of police officers
Proposal-11a: Allow federal prosecutors to successfully prosecute police officers for misconduct by passing legislation to eliminate the requirement that an officer must "willfully" deprive another's rights in order to violate Section 242. [22]
Proposal-11b: Use federal funds to encourage independent investigations and prosecutions[23]
Proposal-11c: Pass legislation such as the Police Training and Independent Review Act of 2015 or use of existing federal funds to encourage external, independent investigations and prosecution of police killings. [24]
Side Note – Start
I disagree. Doing so effectively creates an unprotected class of persons. This is the definition of discrimination.
I disagree. The DOJ, an LE agency, must be restricted to the will of The People in the same manner as police force personnel; otherwise, more power incentivizes the benefits of wrong-doing.
I disagree. Equality and due process under the law are requirements, not encouragements. If “encouragement” takes primacy over “requirement”, then investigations and prosecutions cannot be independent; they will become political.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-12: Establish a permanent Special Prosecutor's Office at the State level for cases of police violence
Proposal-12a: The Special Prosecutor's Office should be: required and authorized to prosecute all cases of where police kill or seriously injure a civilian, in-custody deaths and cases where a civilian alleges criminal misconduct against a police officer; equipped with an office and resources to conduct thorough investigations; required to have its Chief Prosecutor chosen from a list of candidates offered by community organizations. [25]
Side Note – Start
I agree that if the office is created, then it should be resourced.
I disagree. Use of if “this”, then “that” without regard to circumstance is an abuse of authority. If an investigation warrants a trial, then go to trial. An allegation, while sufficient to warrant an investigation, is not sufficient to warrant a criminal proceeding.
I disagree. Controlling candidacy in this way is a deliberate effort to circumvent the will of voters; and, would incentivize policing to become increasingly political; and, would prompt campaigning outside public view.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-13: Require independent investigations of all cases where police kill or seriously injure civilians
Proposal-13a: The independent investigators should be: required and authorized to prosecute all cases of where police kill or seriously injure a civilian, in-custody deaths and cases where a civilian alleges criminal misconduct against a police officer; required to investigate all cases where police kill chosen at random from a list of the largest ten agencies in the state; required to report their findings to the public. [26]
Side Note – Start
I disagree. This is an investigative body, not a prosecution body.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-14: Increase the number of police officers who reflect the communities they serve 
Proposal-14a: Require police departments to develop and publicly report a strategy and timeline for achieving a representative proportion of police officers who are women and people of color through outreach, recruitment and changes to departmental practices. [27]

Side Note – Start
I disagree. If police departments were required to control personnel according to community demographics (hire/fire according to race and sex), then the end result is institutionalized racism and sexism. Problem-1: Assuming the “women and people of color” mismatch to local demographics is small enough to be controlled, and will remain small enough to continue to be controlled, is a fallacy. The assumption does not hold because when the government subsidizes the solution to a problem, then more of that problem will develop (ex: men, age, LGBTQ, language, ethnicity, creed, etc.). Problem-2: Without controls that oppress choice, there is no guarantee that changes in institutional behavior will realize a desired result. Therefore, to achieve the desired result people inside the institution, and outside the institution, must be forced to comply with the mandate; or, there will always be some non-compliance/risk to that mandate (requirement).
Side Note – Stop

Objective-15: Use community feedback to inform police department policies and practices
Proposal-2: Require a regular survey (Ex: Milwaukee survey) to be fielded to the community to gauge their experiences and perceptions of the police and use this information to inform: police department policies and practices; police officer evaluations; police officer pay incentives. [28]
Side Note – Start
My primary concern is with regard to tying survey results directly to evaluations and compensation. While an officer can change his/her behavior towards the public, the public is in no way obligated to change their behavior towards the officer. Therefore, it’s possible to create a situation in which the officer may be doing everything right, but still receive an unfavorable action with regard to evaluation and/or pay.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-16: Body Cams
Proposal-16a: Require the use of body cameras - in addition to dashboard cameras - and establish policies governing their use. [29]
Side Note – Start
I agree with the deployment and use of body cameras, civilian review, public release on request, video storage, anonymity to prevent public viewing outside trial, and use of FIOA.
I disagree with review of emancipated relatives, and the following restrictions.
·                  “Negative evidentiary factor” – This is loaded and biased. This provides an opportunity for subjects to cite anonymity, then allege wrong-doing against the officer; thus, leaning the officer without an affirmative defense. There is not a case were lack of this type of recording would not present “a negative evidentiary factor”
·                  Restrict “reviewing footage” – This sets-up opportunity for officers to perjure themselves. This is predatory against officers.
·                  Facial Recognition Software – Disagree. If LE has ability to make a positive ID based on physical evidence, then LE should make that connection and act accordingly.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-17: The Right to Record Police
Proposal-17a: Ban police officers from taking cell phones or other recording devices without a person's consent or warrant and give people the right to sue police departments if they take or destroy these devices. [30]
Side Note – Start
I agree.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-18: Invest in Rigorous and Sustained Training
Proposal-18a: Require officers to undergo training - including scenario-based training - on the following topics on at least a quarterly basis and involve the community - including youth of color - in their design and implementation…[31]
Side Note – Start
False Authority, Lack of Definition – AGAIN…define procedural justice. Procedural justice focuses on the way police and other legal authorities interact with the public, and how the characteristics of those interactions shape the public’s views of the police, their willingness to obey the law, and actual crime rates.[32]
I agree with training and with community interaction.
I am concerned with proposing that officers could act in a mediation or conflict resolution role. If the scope is limited to de-escalation, then okay; otherwise, there is a conflict of interest and I am opposed.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-19: Intentionally consider 'unconscious' or 'implicit' racial bias
Proposal-19a: Require current and prospective police officers to undergo mandatory implicit racial bias testing, including testing for bias in shoot/don't shoot decision-making, and develop a clear policy for considering an officer's level of racial bias…[33]
Side Note – Start
I agree with certifications and being selective with regard to officer assignments.
I disagree within a hiring context as the proposal would incentivize racial biasing along political lines versus incentivizing uniform enforcement of laws and public service. Performance evaluations should be left to local decision-makers.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-20: End police department quotas for tickets and arrests
Proposal-20a: Ban police departments from using ticket or arrest quotas to evaluate the performance of police officers. [34]
Side Note – Start
I agree.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-21: Limit fines and fees for low-income people
Proposal-21a: Pass policies requiring local governments to: ban issuing fines or arrest warrants for civilians who fail to appear in court for a traffic citation; ban generating more than 10% of total municipal revenue from fines and fees; allow judges discretion to waive fines and fees for low-income people or initiate payment plans; prohibit courts from ordering individuals on parole or probation to pay supervision fees and other correctional fees. [35]
Side Note – Start
I agree with allowing judges to waive cruel and unusual punishments.
I disagree with mandating specific rules to specific people groups. This would be the definition of discrimination.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-22: Prevent police from taking the money or property of innocent people
Proposal-22a: Prohibit police from: seizing property of civilians (i.e. civil forfeiture) unless they are convicted of a crime and the state establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture; keeping any property that has legally been forfeited (instead, this property should go to a general fund). [36] 

Side Note – Start
I agree.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-23: End the Federal Government's 1033 Program Providing Military Weaponry to Local Police Departments
Proposal-23a: End the supply of federal military weaponry to local police departments under the 1033 program. [37]
Side Note – Start
I agree. If local LE needs something, then the community can purchase that something.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-24: Establish Local Restrictions to Prevent Police Departments from Purchasing or Using Military Weaponry
Proposal-24a: Restrict police departments from purchasing or using military weaponry. [38]
Side Note – Start
I agree. If local LE needs something, then the community can purchase that something.
I agree that police uniforms should not look like military uniforms.
I disagree as a blanket policy measure. If a technology is needed, then use that technology to meet the need of the situation.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-25: Remove barriers to effective misconduct investigations and civilian oversight
Proposal-25a: Remove contract provisions, local policies, and provisions in state Law Enforcement Officers' Bills of Rights laws that conceal misconduct or hamper civilian oversight. [39]
Side Note – Start
I disagree on the grounds of due process. The presumption of innocence and protection of due process must be protected. However, a contract document should not provide legal protections for officers demonstrating misconduct or wrong-doing.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-26: Keep officers' disciplinary history accessible to police departments and the public
Proposal-2: Remove contract provisions, local policies, and provisions in state Law Enforcement Officers' Bills of Rights laws that allow police officers to: expunge or destroy records of past misconduct (both sustained and un-sustained) from their disciplinary file; prevent their disciplinary records from being released to the public via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. [40]
Side Note – Start
I agree.
Side Note – Stop

Objective-27: Ensure officers do not get paid after they kill or seriously injure a civilian
Proposal-27a: Remove contract provisions, local policies, and provisions in state Law Enforcement Officers' Bills of Rights laws that allow police officers to: receive paid leave or remain on desk-duty during an investigation following a police shooting or other use of deadly force; receive paid leave or remain on desk-duty after being charged with a felony offense. [41]
Side Note – Start
I disagree on the grounds of due process. The presumption of innocence and protection of due process must be protected.
Side Note – Stop

Your View
Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com. Please check out The Sam Frescoe Project on Facebook.

Thank you. – Sam Frescoe

© 2016 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

Related Posts

 
Critical Terms
·         Race: (n) an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.[42]
·         Racist: (n) a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.[43]
·         Racism: (n) a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. – (n) a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. – (n) hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.[44] 

Human Rights Principles
·         Universality: Human rights must be afforded to everyone, without exception. The entire premise of the framework is that people are entitled to these rights simply by virtue of being human.  [45]
·         Indivisibility: Human rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, which means that in order to guarantee civil and political rights, a government must also ensure economic, social and cultural rights (and vice versa). The indivisibility principle recognizes that if a government violates rights such as health, it necessarily affects people’s ability to exercise other rights such as the right to life or the right to vote.  [46]
·         Participation: People have a right to participate in how decisions are made regarding protection of their rights. This includes but is not limited to having input on government decisions about rights. To ensure human rights, governments must engage and support the participation of civil society on these issues.  [47]
·         Accountability: Governments must create mechanisms of accountability for the enforcement of rights. It is not enough that rights are recognized in domestic law or in policy rhetoric. Effective measures must be put in place so that the government can be held accountable for realizing human rights.  [48]
·         Transparency: Transparency means that governments must be open about all information and decision-making processes related to rights. People must be able to know and understand how major decisions affecting rights are made and how public institutions, such as hospitals and schools, which are needed to protect rights, are managed and run.  [49]
·         Equity and Non-Discrimination: Human rights must be guaranteed without discrimination of any kind. This includes not only purposeful discrimination, but also protection from policies and practices which may have a discriminatory effect. The standard of non-discrimination is complemented by the principle of equity. Governments must secure the equal enjoyment of human rights by everyone, which may require distributing resources in a way that reduces existing inequities and prioritizing actions that support those with greater needs.  [50] 

“Broken Windows” Theory
·         The broken windows theory is a criminological theory of the norm-setting and signaling effect of urban disorder and vandalism on additional crime and anti-social behavior. The theory states that maintaining and monitoring urban environments to prevent small crimes such as vandalism, public drinking, and toll-jumping helps to create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness, thereby preventing more serious crimes from happening. [51]
·         Others allege that Broken Windows is discriminatory, used as a tool to target minorities. Still other critics suggest that order-maintenance policing leads to over-incarceration or tries to impose a white middle-class morality on urban populations.[52] 

Conflict of Interest
A term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary.[53])

 


[2] 10 CFR 160.3



[3] Here’s What Black Lives Matter Activists Want Politicians To Do About Police Violence. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-lives-matter-policy-demands_us_55d7392ae4b0a40aa3aa9443 (accessed 160711) Julia Craven Reporter, The Huffington Post; Ryan J. Reilly Senior Justice Reporter
[10] As of 160727

No comments:

Post a Comment