Seriously, just give this a listen. https://cafe.com/stay-tuned/the-camden-policing-model-with-anne-milgram-scott-thomson/
Respectfully, unfortunately, different parts of this country are on a different plane as far as thinking goes. Camden, NJ is a long way from Oregon and Georgia. Regretfully, we are generations away from realistically implementing something like this. Again, just being realistic instead of idealistic.
Sheriffs down here are notoriously crooked, yet they are still re-elected time after time...community be damned. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's just the way it is.
Makes no sense. Maybe it's not bad enough that we'd choose it, but if we did it would work far better than what we have now.
Yes, a horribly half baked master plan of firing every cop is the way to go. Every city/county in the country would be sued and tied up in court for arbitrarily firing their POs...and unions would follow suit. SMH And Camden's police model did not involve firing every cop.
I like how you refuse to quote it because it doesn't actually say what you claim. Shutting down a police department is not arbitrarily firing everyone. It's shutting down a police department. Just like Camden did, and they didn't get stopped by any of the lawsuits or anything else you claimed. Straw men are awesome. Until the wind blows.
Nope; "..the best thing to do is start replacing police departments wholesale. From top to bottom. Get rid of everyone, and only hire back the good ones." Because just as now, it always leads to same ole tired BS ...."I didn't say what I said". And I'm by no means the only one who has observed this lame pattern...and the "ignore" thingy simply makes viewing threads to confusing. So I don't quote or directly respond to certain posters. Camden did not fire and then hire back the "good" cops. Shutting down police departments will leave citizens defenseless...loling at the master plan.
So it doesn't actually say what you claim. It specifically says Which is exactly what Camden did. They replaced their city police with the county metro police. They also hired some of the good ones from the city police back to be police again with the Metro police. And I have referenced Camden as an example to follow throughout this conversation, so that's even more clear. So yes, it works. If you can show how the Camden example failed or specifics about why it wouldn't work in other places (or better yet, other places it's been tried and not worked) we could actually get on with a productive conversation rather then the petty tit for tat BS. Which is what I think we'd all prefer.
If you shut down a city police department and hire some of the officers to work for an expanded sheriff's department you would be in fact firing everyone from the city department because the city department would no longer exist.
Yes, and again, I would imagine you would be leaving yourself open for one helluva lawsuit...besides, "Camden" didn't resort to doing it that way.
And as I've been suggesting Camden repeatedly, I'm obviously suggesting we follow that model. But it does help the straw man argument to suggest otherwise... I notice that you haven't been able to show any drawbacks from that model.
I'm not the one who incessantly pretends to have all the answers...and I'm also not the only one who also sees through it.
I don't engage in debate if I can't contribute productively. If I don't have anything to back it up I shut up and read the discussion. So, what you appear to be saying is you can show no drawbacks to the model you appear to be arguing against, just more personal attacks and straw men. I don't get it. If you don't want to engage in productive debate why wade in?
But not "arbitrarily". You would be closing an unproductive department and hiring the most qualified people into another department. This happens all the time in business and in government. Which is what Camden did. If somebody thinks there is a drawback to what Camden did I'd love to see it.
