Here’s a good question for people to chew on, at perhaps a more local level than this is referring to…
If the mayor pays the police, and the mayor has the police contribute to pension funds, and the mayor controls those pension funds, and the mayor appoints the police chief, … the police clearly don’t “work for the people” under this model. They literally work for the mayor, whose only accountability to the people is winning a rigged vote every several years
Originally, before “police” structures took off in the early 1900’s, the militia and citizens would perform the role of bringing someone to court to face their accuser before a jury of their peers.
Under the “police” system, the police are used in place of militia and citizens (who still vaguely recalled making “citizens arrests” not terribly far back, but didn’t know the protocols to do it) to make arrests and issue citations for violations of statutes, mandates, ordinances, and other not-laws, upon which time the accused is brought into administrative courts to face only a judge.
If an organized policing corporation remains subservient to mayors’ offices, rather than the people, or the County Sherriff… it just doesn’t seem like this is going to be the structure we should want moving forward.
Obviously, Law Enforcement can’t and shouldn’t go away, but if this analysis is correct, what would/could any sort of Law Enforcement procedures or organizations look like, going forward? Would we return to the militia model? Something else entirely? Change the management of policing corporations to somehow be more directly accountable to the people, instead of these unaccountable men? (Who are going to become more accountable, but it might be better to put things farther away from them)
Any thoughts? Is any of this on point or have I missed something? The whole target?
It won't be homogenous urban vs. rural. In a rural environment where everyone is armed, you don't need a large structure, just a sheriff, a coroner and castle doctrine.
Here’s a good question for people to chew on, at perhaps a more local level than this is referring to…
If the mayor pays the police, and the mayor has the police contribute to pension funds, and the mayor controls those pension funds, and the mayor appoints the police chief, … the police clearly don’t “work for the people” under this model. They literally work for the mayor, whose only accountability to the people is winning a rigged vote every several years
Originally, before “police” structures took off in the early 1900’s, the militia and citizens would perform the role of bringing someone to court to face their accuser before a jury of their peers.
Under the “police” system, the police are used in place of militia and citizens (who still vaguely recalled making “citizens arrests” not terribly far back, but didn’t know the protocols to do it) to make arrests and issue citations for violations of statutes, mandates, ordinances, and other not-laws, upon which time the accused is brought into administrative courts to face only a judge.
If an organized policing corporation remains subservient to mayors’ offices, rather than the people, or the County Sherriff… it just doesn’t seem like this is going to be the structure we should want moving forward.
Obviously, Law Enforcement can’t and shouldn’t go away, but if this analysis is correct, what would/could any sort of Law Enforcement procedures or organizations look like, going forward? Would we return to the militia model? Something else entirely? Change the management of policing corporations to somehow be more directly accountable to the people, instead of these unaccountable men? (Who are going to become more accountable, but it might be better to put things farther away from them)
Any thoughts? Is any of this on point or have I missed something? The whole target?
It won't be homogenous urban vs. rural. In a rural environment where everyone is armed, you don't need a large structure, just a sheriff, a coroner and castle doctrine.