Which party could fix police-community relationships while having law and order?

[Suburbia]

Does any political party have a plan on fixing police-community relations while maintaining law and order, since you know, you can't have anarchy?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/police-chief-network-213250

https://www.nj.com/morris/2019/05/video-shows-cops-repeatedly-punched-nj-man-in-face-while-being-restrained-during-arrest-in-dover.html

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Policing by consent.

[Person Man]

All I know is that its important that cops do their job and do it well. We, or at least I, have little need for cops that just go around and make things worse.

[GP270watch]

No party.

 There needs to be more civilian oversight over policing and police misconduct. The community not the politicians should decide how they are policed.

[GP270watch]

Look at this incredibly sad and stupid police interaction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=325&v=zIHoejJOvkE

 A young black man was pulled over for making a "wide turn", then subjected to a search of his car with a drug dog, he was handcuffed, lectured and condescended to. His concerned mother shows up and is also lectured and given a bunch of nonsensical rambling from another officer. Meanwhile no crime was committed except a traffic infraction, supposedly.

 The officers claimed to be a part of the violent crimes unit, but were looking for drugs, and really looking for crimes and profiling if we're being honest. The police officer even defends the tactics by questioning a civilian who is not a criminal that "they're fighting violent crime and basically what else are they supposed to do?" The police officers escalate the situation at nearly every turn.

 This is the stupidity in training and practice along with the prejudices that people already have in our society that leads to violence, brutality, and tragic deaths by the police. What sane person could view this video and think this is good community policing?

[junior chįmp]

Get rid of police unions. Public sector unions should be banned

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Look at this incredibly sad and stupid police interaction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=325&v=zIHoejJOvkE

 A young black man was pulled over for making a "wide turn", then subjected to a search of his car with a drug dog, he was handcuffed, lectured and condescended to. His concerned mother shows up and is also lectured and given a bunch of nonsensical rambling from another officer. Meanwhile no crime was committed except a traffic infraction, supposedly.

 The officers claimed to be a part of the violent crimes unit, but were looking for drugs, and really looking for crimes and profiling if we're being honest. The police officer even defends the tactics by questioning a civilian who is not a criminal that "they're fighting violent crime and basically what else are they supposed to do?" The police officers escalate the situation at nearly every turn.

 This is the stupidity in training and practice along with the prejudices that people already have in our society that leads to violence, brutality, and tragic deaths by the police. What sane person could view this video and think this is good community policing?

I watched the first 13 minutes of video and it looks like the police did a great job.  Special props to the officer who talked with the mom because that lady was off her rocker (especially when she first arrived) and the officer who spoke with her displayed commendable patience with a pretty unreasonable individual.  There was no evidence to suggest the traffic stop occurred due to racial profiling.

[PSOL]

The only thing we are lacking is accountability and a police force that serves all Americans equally, not stooges for the elite. We need to reform, or even start from scratch, our security forces to not be some Conservative saver when things are in the rut.

Generally, both the people truly want this and so are espoused in its specificity on most Left-wing political organization (DSA, PSL, Green, Anarchist orgs, etc.) planks in regards to local law enforcement.

[Ilhan Apologist]

No party.

 There needs to be more civilian oversight over policing and police misconduct. The community not the politicians should decide how they are policed.

I mean, that might make things worse tbh. Imagine people whose first instinct is calling the cops having a say in what police officers do.

[S019]

The GOP

[GP270watch]

I watched the first 13 minutes of video and it looks like the police did a great job.  Special props to the officer who talked with the mom because that lady was off her rocker (especially when she first arrived) and the officer who spoke with her displayed commendable patience with a pretty unreasonable individual.  There was no evidence to suggest the traffic stop occurred due to racial profiling.

 You're part of the problem.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The Democrats actually care about both, obviously them. Republicans can't claim to represent either anymore...if they ever even did in the first place.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I watched the first 13 minutes of video and it looks like the police did a great job.  S There was no evidence to suggest the traffic stop occurred due to racial profiling.

 You're part of the problem.

Please don't edit my posts when you quote them without indicating that you're doing so, k thx bye

[GP270watch]

https://www.arnoldsmithlaw.com/what-are-your-rights-when-it-comes-to-nosy-drug-dogs.html

Nearly everything about that police stop was unconstitutional.

[Bismarck]

Probably nonpartisan or RINO/DINO police chiefs. This is something that almost certainly will be solved at the local issue with law enforecemenr reaching out to community groups.

[Inmate Trump]

There should be higher standards for employment in law enforcement.

[Continential]

There should be higher standards for employment in law enforcement.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://www.arnoldsmithlaw.com/what-are-your-rights-when-it-comes-to-nosy-drug-dogs.html

Nearly everything about that police stop was unconstitutional.

Actually, under Rodriguez, police cannot unreasonably extend (which the Court has held means making a traffic stop take more than 20 minutes) a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff without “reasonable suspicion” (which they definitely had).  IIRC, the stop was 18 minutes.  

Furthermore, the Court has also held that police can walk a drug dog around a car at a traffic stop and if the dog shows any sign of having detected the scent of drugs, that’s good enough for probable cause and the Court has also held that the police do not need “reasonable suspicion” to conduct a dog sniff at a traffic stop ( Caballes v. Illinois).  And as it turned out, the dog picked up the scent of some kind of illegal narcotics on the suspect’s wallet in this matter, so not only did the police have probable cause, but it’s not like the suspect was actually cleared of wrongdoing either (nor was he charged btw).  

Long story short, you’re factually wrong about this and unless I’m misremembering the length of the traffic stop in question, it’s not even a remotely close call.  You may say the laws about dog sniffs at traffic stops should be changed and that’s all well and good, but it doesn’t make what the officers did here unconstitutional.  

Edit: I checked and apparently it was over twenty minutes, but they still had reasonable suspicion and eventually probable cause once the dog sniffed the suspect’s wallet, so the police still didn’t act unconditionally.  I’ll also note that the suspect left his car door open when he got out.  That act could arguably be interpreted as implicit consent to a search as far as I’m concerned, but that issue is ultimately irrelevant in this matter.

[GP270watch]

 The police officer opened his door and removed him by force. He asked for his door to be closed and they refused. He explicitly did not consent to a search. You're seeing what you want to see in this video and I wonder why.

 People have a lot of rights in this situation but the problem is that cops with bad attitudes, bad policing practices, and legal grey areas obscure and obfuscate your rights.

 Drug sniffing dogs are one of these baseless police techniques that allows them to violate your rights. The failure rate of drug sniffing dogs doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. Just like field drug testing kits have been shown to be completely bogus. But cops are still allowed to routinely use both to make unauthorized searches and even arrests. Cops also claim routinely that suspects must follow every lawful order while giving unlawful orders that violate your rights. How could the young man who was being harassed close his door when he was physically removed from the car after the officer unlocked and opened his door?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The police officer opened his door and removed him by force. He asked for his door to be closed and they refused. He explicitly did not consent to a search. You're seeing what you want to see in this video and I wonder why.

 People have a lot of rights in this situation but the problem is that cops with bad attitudes, bad policing practices, and legal grey areas obscure and obfuscate your rights.

 Drug sniffing dogs are one of these baseless police techniques that allows them to violate your rights. The failure rate of drug sniffing dogs doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. Just like field drug testing kits have been shown to be completely bogus. But cops are still allowed to routinely use both to make unauthorized searches and even arrests. Cops also claim routinely that suspects must follow every lawful order while giving unlawful orders that violate your rights. How could the young man who was being harassed close his door when he was physically removed from the car after the officer unlocked and opened his door?

As I noted, the question of whether he gave them consent to search the vehicle is ultimately an irrelevant one in this matter (incidentally, I never took a position one way or the other on the question of consent in this matter and was simply presenting an opposing argument to your position, which is one of many problems with the bolded section of your post).  The police had reasonable suspicion when they used the dog sniff which led to probable cause to suspect there were drugs somewhere in the car.  At the least, the suspect’s wallet appears to have come into contact with illegal drugs of some sort recently enough for the dog to smell it.  

As for dog sniffs, as I said before, if you think the law should provide a narrower set of circumstances under which dog sniffs can be used at traffic stops then that’s one thing.  My initial instinct would be to disagree, but I am open to arguments in favor of restricting when they can be used and especially how long they can take.  Of course, that’s if we’re talking about what each of us believes the law *should be* because (for better or worse) the current law of the land about dog sniffs at traffic stops is pretty clear and (for the reasons I explained in my previous post which I notice you opted not to respond to) under the law as it is today, the officers did nothing wrong.  

To answer your question about what the suspect could do, he could’ve shut the door and then locked it immediately (the moment he got out of the car) and if the cops tried to physically prevent him from doing so at the time, then maybe he could legitimately argue they were acting improperly.  It’d certainly muddy the waters a bit, at the very least.

Drug sniffing dogs are not a baseless tactic.  They are one of many legitimate tools in the law enforcement toolbox which - like a hammer - can still be used to hurt innocent people when used for a malevolent purpose by a bad actor.  Does the fact that some murderers have used hammers to kill their victims mean that most hammers are used to hurt people?  Of course not and the fact that a few rogue cops may misuse dog sniffs to harass innocent people does not mean that most dog sniff searches are used in that way (o/c the dog sniff search was used properly here, but you don’t really care about that).

Returning to the bolded bit, I don’t look at anything wanting to see police misconduct nor should anyone else (b/c...you know...the hope is that they’re conducting themselves properly), but that’s not why I think the police did not act unconstitutionally in this instance.  To be blunt, the reason is that I know what the law actually says about this.  With all due respect, it sounds like you either don’t know, don’t care or both.  

Oh and one more thing, you might wanna spend more time doing something to actually advance the cause of criminal justice reform in your local community and less time playing the boy who cried racism whenever someone disrupts your keyboard activist “muh all copz are evulz” narrative by pointing out what the law actually says about an issue.  Your choice to make a false insinuation that I am a racist who reflexively defends police misconduct against African-Americans rather than addressing the legitimate points I made was an act of intellectual cowardice which simply suggests that you know you’re wrong and have nothing left to fall back on except race-baiting.  

The reality is that sweeping criminal justice reform is desperately needed in this country, but it will never happen if folks like you reflexively cry racism every time a suspect complains about a police encounter instead of focusing on the legitimate cases of police misconduct.  Instead of talking about nothingburgers like this incident and randomly calling each other racists, we (supporters of criminal justice reform) should be focusing on race-based sentencing desparities, the prison industrial complex, the murders of unarmed young African-American and Hispanic men by rogue officers, breaking down the blue wall of silence, shifting internal affairs’ investigative responsibilities to independent civilian review boards, abolishing the death penalty, etc.  If those are the sorts of issues you want to address, I’m all ears...but I also have no interest in attacking officers for simply doing their job.  The law is what it is and you’re only fooling yourself if you don’t acknowledge that.

[GP270watch]

 You didn't pay attention to the video. Watch it again

 You're assumption that this young man could have simply made a move away from the police after they physically removed him from his car and after the officer unlocked his door and opened it, to assume he could walk away and close the door, could have got this young man brutalized or killed. He even asked the officer to close his door and they refused. So again what video are you watching?

 The whole traffic incident was over policing and bad police techniques. The idea that you favor the broader criminal sentence reforms when you have such a jaded and naive view of what is going here gives you no credibility at all that you care about those things.

 I'm supposed to believe that you care about the police shootings of young unarmed African American men when you favor and defend these terrible police tactics that lead to escalation and confrontation of a citizen who was accused of nothing more than a minor traffic violation. A charge that had such veracity that it was later dropped. Also the city of Louisville after reviewing this tape made changes or at least promised to. This was nothing more than an illegal search and detainment as they setup a sting to look for violent crime as admitted to by the other officer. If you think that's the way to address all those other things you claim to care about, you're tragically misguided.

Police need to find a better way': Officials want answers about black teen's traffic stop

Feeling the heat, LMPD changes traffic stop rules to restrict handcuffing and searches

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You didn't pay attention to the video. Watch it again

 You're assumption that this young man could have simply made a move away from the police after they physically removed him from his car and after the officer unlocked his door and opened it, to assume he could walkaway and close the door, could have got this young man brutalized or killed.

 The whole traffic incident was over policing and bad police techniques. The idea that you favor the broader criminal sentence reforms when you have such a jaded and naive view of what is going here gives you no credibility at all that you care about those things.

 I'm supposed to believe that you care about the police shootings of young unarmed African American men when you favor and defend these terrible police tactics that lead to escalation and confrontation of a citizen who was accused of nothing more than a minor traffic violation. A charge that had such veracity that it was later dropped. Also the city of Louisville after reviewing this tape made changes or at least promised to. This was nothing more than an illegal search and detainment as they setup a sting to look for violent crime as admitted to by the other officer. If you think that's the way to address all those other things you claim to care about, you're tragically misguided.

Police need to find a better way': Officials want answers about black teen's traffic stop

Feeling the heat, LMPD changes traffic stop rules to restrict handcuffing and searches

Strangely enough, I don’t care whether you believe me or not.  Anyway, wake me when you’re ready to respond to what I actually said.  I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you have reading comprehension skills.

[GP270watch]

You didn't pay attention to the video. Watch it again

 You're assumption that this young man could have simply made a move away from the police after they physically removed him from his car and after the officer unlocked his door and opened it, to assume he could walkaway and close the door, could have got this young man brutalized or killed.

 The whole traffic incident was over policing and bad police techniques. The idea that you favor the broader criminal sentence reforms when you have such a jaded and naive view of what is going here gives you no credibility at all that you care about those things.

 I'm supposed to believe that you care about the police shootings of young unarmed African American men when you favor and defend these terrible police tactics that lead to escalation and confrontation of a citizen who was accused of nothing more than a minor traffic violation. A charge that had such veracity that it was later dropped. Also the city of Louisville after reviewing this tape made changes or at least promised to. This was nothing more than an illegal search and detainment as they setup a sting to look for violent crime as admitted to by the other officer. If you think that's the way to address all those other things you claim to care about, you're tragically misguided.

Police need to find a better way': Officials want answers about black teen's traffic stop

Feeling the heat, LMPD changes traffic stop rules to restrict handcuffing and searches

Strangely enough, I don’t care whether you believe me or not.  Anyway, wake me when you’re ready to give the dishonest race-baiting a rest and respond to what I actually said.

 I never called you a racist either.

 I wondered why you saw the video differently and you brought up the whole race issue, and got all defensive claiming "I'm not racist" which again is interesting.

 I believe the African American community is over policed based on statistics and real world observations. This video seems like a textbook example of that. From the practices that setup a unit that does this, to the actual procedure, to the tone of the officers involved and the frustration of a young man going to get snacks at the store being treated like he's working for the Sinaloa cartel. Because an officer after violating many rights claims a dog sniff(which is statistically no better than a coin toss) signaled that his wallet may have held drugs. Wallets do hold money, which by the way nearly all money in circulation has traces of drugs on them. This is pure garbage, garbage in and garbage out and certainly not the foundations of a better criminal justice system.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You didn't pay attention to the video. Watch it again

 You're assumption that this young man could have simply made a move away from the police after they physically removed him from his car and after the officer unlocked his door and opened it, to assume he could walkaway and close the door, could have got this young man brutalized or killed.

 The whole traffic incident was over policing and bad police techniques. The idea that you favor the broader criminal sentence reforms when you have such a jaded and naive view of what is going here gives you no credibility at all that you care about those things.

 I'm supposed to believe that you care about the police shootings of young unarmed African American men when you favor and defend these terrible police tactics that lead to escalation and confrontation of a citizen who was accused of nothing more than a minor traffic violation. A charge that had such veracity that it was later dropped. Also the city of Louisville after reviewing this tape made changes or at least promised to. This was nothing more than an illegal search and detainment as they setup a sting to look for violent crime as admitted to by the other officer. If you think that's the way to address all those other things you claim to care about, you're tragically misguided.

Police need to find a better way': Officials want answers about black teen's traffic stop

Feeling the heat, LMPD changes traffic stop rules to restrict handcuffing and searches

Strangely enough, I don’t care whether you believe me or not.  Anyway, wake me when you’re ready to give the dishonest race-baiting a rest and respond to what I actually said.

 I never called you a racist either.

 I wondered why you saw the video differently and you brought up the whole race issue, and got all defensive claiming "I'm not racist" which again is interesting.

 I believe the African American community is over policed based on statistics and real world observations. This video seems like a textbook example of that. From the practices that setup a unit that does this, to the actual procedure, to the tone of the officers involved and the frustration of a young man going to get snacks at the store being treated like he's working for the Sinaloa cartel. Because an officer after violating many rights claims a dog sniff(which is statistically no better than a coin toss) signaled that his wallet may have held drugs. Wallets do hold money, which by the way nearly all money in circulation has traces of drugs on them. This is pure garbage, garbage in and garbage out and certainly not the foundations of a better criminal justice system.

You absolutely called me a racist, you simply made an implicit accusation instead of an explicit one. We both know exactly what you were (and are) implying.  And you still haven’t given any legal basis for your claim that what the officers did was unconstitutional.  I wonder why...

[GP270watch]

And you still haven’t given any legal basis for your claim that what the officers did was unconstitutional. 

 I did. It's called the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.