Regulating the methods and tools police can use

So the legislative branch of government makes the laws. The executive branch of government which consists of the police enforces the laws. As such I believe its the legislative branch which sets the regulations as to what kind of methods and tools police can use. For instance, in states such as NJ until recently police could not use tasers in states such as NJ because tasers were banned in NJ and that included police use. I believe the ban on tasers in states such as NJ has recently been overturned so tasers will soon be available for purchase in NJ by anybody whose 18 or older. When they will be available for purchase and if and when police will start using them in NJ I'm not sure but presumably soon. Anyway, the point is that its the legislative branch that decides what tools and methods police can use and so if I don't want police using a certain tool or method the thing to do would be to go to the legislative branch and talk to them about it. (BTW Im not against police using tasers and I know that they currently do use them and have been using them in states where they're allowed to.)

I understand what you are trying to say, but you are creating too many problems with your line of thinking. And you are also mixing subjects.

Generally speaking when the Federal, State, or Local government steps in and legislates or regulates law enforcement tools and practices it is from a restriction point of view. Not necessarily an approval point of view.

NJ and stun gun bans go back to 1985, and recent Supreme Court decisions made way that challenged how NJ went about banning "self defense" weapons. It was more than stun guns, but things like batons, clubs, certain knives, etc. were all included in NJ's original ban.

What it sounds like you are really looking for is for Legislation to be made to draw a line in the sand on what can and cannot be used, the problem is conditions and technology continue to change and that puts the onus on asking the government for permission. With how slow legislation tends to move into becoming so, that places a strain on companies that design these things for far more than police use but also general public use. Another issue is the Federal Government happens to be in the business of passing to the Local Level various equipment it has, Obama did one thing and not that long ago Trump reversed it. All of which was done through Executive Order, none of which Congress did much about with legislation proposal.

Regulating the methods police use is another matter, and that is a fiasco of legislation and regulation from the Federal level on down to local. It also encompasses everything from arrest procedure to what kind of strikes and holds the police may use in hand-to-hand confrontation to how long someone can be "detained" without knowing why. Some of which has been influenced by civil actions against law enforcement departments, others by various civil rights movements resulting in legislation at some level of governance, others by government deciding to step in an regulate just cause.

The issues we face on the militarization of the police, our slide towards a sort of "police state," the means and tools deployed by various police departments, etc. is a massive collection of influences that got us to what we see today.

A single line in the sand from the Federal Government via Legislation I highly doubt solves this.

OrphanSlug said:

The issues we face on the militarization of the police, our slide towards a sort of "police state," the means and tools deployed by various police departments, etc. is a massive collection of influences that got us to what we see today.

A single line in the sand from the Federal Government via Legislation I highly doubt solves this.

Click to expand...

I agree with you here. I also think that militarization of police and increased police violence are serious problems that we face in the US. I do think that the federal government should get involved to solve the problem though. I don't think federal legislation is the answer, as the many issues around legislating that you mentioned are absolutely problems that would have to be addressed. I think a permanent division of the Justice Department dedicated entirely to police oversight is something that would be both useful and necessary to curb the abuses seen at the state and local levels. Personally, I'm someone who is for enhanced federal power at the expense of the states, particularly given the ability for people in the US to easily move from state to state today, and I feel that policing should not vary as wildly as it does across the nation. More federal oversight, if done well, could make our local policing reach a higher minimum standard, which would I think make us all better off.

Let them use whatever they want. As long as there is a justification and the cost to the taxpayer is nill or can be justified (as in...I have no problems with “military grade equipment” if they are using said tech to deal with a gang who is armed with military grade ak47s and such OR in a hostage standoff).

I do believe law enforcement should have longer training periods with more hands on training. They should also spend more time as a field tech role where they are doing traffic directing, crossing guards, investigating traffic crashes, and so on. But that is a budget issue.

blackjack50 said:

Let them use whatever they want. As long as there is a justification and the cost to the taxpayer is nill or can be justified (as in...I have no problems with “military grade equipment” if they are using said tech to deal with a gang who is armed with military grade ak47s and such OR in a hostage standoff).

I do believe law enforcement should have longer training periods with more hands on training. They should also spend more time as a field tech role where they are doing traffic directing, crossing guards, investigating traffic crashes, and so on. But that is a budget issue.

Click to expand...

I draw the line at low yield tactical nukes...

Fledermaus said:

I draw the line at low yield tactical nukes...

Click to expand...

They can use a MOAB but not one nuke for law enforcement.

Maccabee said:

They can use a MOAB but not one nuke for law enforcement.

Click to expand...

A mini-MOAB

RationalPolicy said:

I agree with you here. I also think that militarization of police and increased police violence are serious problems that we face in the US. I do think that the federal government should get involved to solve the problem though. I don't think federal legislation is the answer, as the many issues around legislating that you mentioned are absolutely problems that would have to be addressed. I think a permanent division of the Justice Department dedicated entirely to police oversight is something that would be both useful and necessary to curb the abuses seen at the state and local levels. Personally, I'm someone who is for enhanced federal power at the expense of the states, particularly given the ability for people in the US to easily move from state to state today, and I feel that policing should not vary as wildly as it does across the nation. More federal oversight, if done well, could make our local policing reach a higher minimum standard, which would I think make us all better off.

Click to expand...

We probably agree on what we see going on with the police and regulation/legislation but I suspect we differ on how we got here.

One big issue I already see is handing Police oversight to the Justice Department, the Executive Branch has already proven itself very willing and likely to sell, give, whatever military grade equipment to willing local law enforcement. In the worry alone about the Militarization of Police, we are asking the fox to guard the hen house.

A prerequisite reason for the above is we already see the results of "War on Drugs" thinking, more and more in funding ends up going to a war that has no light at the end of the tunnel. We can already document well the social and economic impacts of this war, and we can also note that our Police Militarization is not about much other crime other than the implications of this long standing war plaguing major cities across this nation.

Lastly, I doubt we really can apply a single standard from the Federal Level as policing rural Helena, Montana is going to be very different than South Central Los Angeles, or Atlanta, or New York, the list goes on.

I am not convinced that Federal oversight will do much other than create another expensive bureaucracy with little gain.

We need to spend more time on why we got here, instead of looking for government to regulate government and leaving everything else that got us here out of the discussion.

OrphanSlug said:

Regulating the methods police use is another matter, and that is a fiasco of legislation and regulation from the Federal level on down to local. It also encompasses everything from arrest procedure to what kind of strikes and holds the police may use in hand-to-hand confrontation to how long someone can be "detained" without knowing why. Some of which has been influenced by civil actions against law enforcement departments, others by various civil rights movements resulting in legislation at some level of governance, others by government deciding to step in an regulate just cause.

Click to expand...

Alright thank you. This is the information I was looking for, if you want to regulate methods and/or tools used by police the thing to do is to contact your legislative branch at the federal level. I will probably get lots of heat and make lots of waves for what I want to ban but I know where I need to go to do it.

DebateChallenge said:

Alright thank you. This is the information I was looking for, if you want to regulate methods and/or tools used by police the thing to do is to contact your legislative branch at the federal level. I will probably get lots of heat and make lots of waves for what I want to ban but I know where I need to go to do it.

Click to expand...

My advice, if you do anything make sure your request to your Representatives and Senators is reasonable and informative.

I am not sure what your lean is or that of your Representatives and Senators. But know that Republicans tend to favor the police and are more likely to give latitude on the tactics and equipment they use, and with Democrats it comes down to where they are and what the conditions are of recent interactions between the police and various low income areas they patrol.

If you are looking to fly off the handle and go over the top on your request, odds are it will get little response but laughter... if anyone important even reads it.

OrphanSlug said:

My advice, if you do anything make sure your request to your Representatives and Senators is reasonable and informative.

I am not sure what your lean is or that of your Representatives and Senators. But know that Republicans tend to favor the police and are more likely to give latitude on the tactics and equipment they use, and with Democrats it comes down to where they are and what the conditions are of recent interactions between the police and various low income areas they patrol.

If you are looking to fly off the handle and go over the top on your request, odds are it will get little response but laughter... if anyone important even reads it.

Click to expand...

Alright, well what I want to regulate is the use of dogs by police officers and I might even go as far as to suggest entirely banning dogs from police use but as you mention, that would be flying off the handle and would probably not work out. Anyway, the problem is that police can use dogs to sniff out your car or house at their whim and if the dogs smell anything that allows them to search your person or vehicle or home without your consent. As it is dogs are not all that accurate at sniffing stuff out and the police can claim the dog smelled something even if you don't have anything they would smell. Its been said that the accuracy of a dog smelling or not smelling something is about as accurate as a coin toss.