Support Local Control of the Police Department!

doug · PostJan 31, 2008#12008-01-31T00:01+00:00

http://www.senate.mo.gov/08info/BTS_Web ... &BillID=59

http://www.senate.mo.gov/08info/pdf-bil ... /sb785.pdf

CONTACT the members of this subcomittee and let them know you want local control of your police!

http://www.senate.mo.gov/07info/comm/edtl.htm

o John Griesheimer, 26th, Chair

o Tom Dempsey, 23rd, Vice-Chair

o Jason Crowell, 27th

o Kevin Engler, 3rd

o Jack Goodman, 29th

o Carl Vogel, 6th

o Victor Callahan, 11th

o Harry Kennedy, 1st

o Ryan McKenna, 22nd

o Wes Shoemyer, 18th

aviator · PostJan 31, 2008#22008-01-31T01:25+00:00

Why would I want this?

shadrach · PostJan 31, 2008#32008-01-31T01:29+00:00

Because St. Louis City does not have authority over its own police department. The state government does. Goes back to the Civil War. Unique among US cities. STL can't do a thing about its local PD without a statewide vote or approval from a Governor-appointed board.

Those who know more please correct/enlighten.

doug · PostJan 31, 2008#42008-01-31T02:51+00:00

Why do you think our crime is so high? Partly because we have no say in how policing is implemented. Now is the chance to reverse this policy which dates to the Civil War and only undermines St. Louis' economic and social development.

jcity · PostJan 31, 2008#52008-01-31T04:43+00:00

Why do you think our crime is so high?

because we have a ton of poverty and a lot of stupid people that CHOOSE the path of a criminal...?

roy314 · PostJan 31, 2008#62008-01-31T05:04+00:00

What does local control mean? I would assume that the police would be put under the mayor like in most other cities. Do we really want to politicize the police department? Especially after the Sherman George fiasco.

In any event, it seems like the police are doing a decent job recently. And don't bring up the missing $40,000. If that's the biggest scandal in your department in the last 10 years, then you've got a pretty clean department.

drunkrusski · PostJan 31, 2008#72008-01-31T05:09+00:00

This is a serious question. How do you figure that control change will make any difference, one way or another (i.e. school board or police department). No matter how you switch around the management, until you actually change the problems on the ground things won't matter.

Is giving local control going to be less red tape?

mcarril · PostJan 31, 2008#82008-01-31T05:57+00:00

Like many other changes to how St. Louis is governed, would this require a citywide vote of 2/3 majority?

publiceye · PostJan 31, 2008#92008-01-31T14:11+00:00

The most usual tack to gain local control is to pass a law in Jefferson City that would allow the St. Louis Board of Aldermen to create a new police department. Presumably, the new department would preserve the ranks and organization of the current state-controlled department.

There is at least one bill in Jeff City right now that would do that.

doug · PostJan 31, 2008#102008-01-31T14:48+00:00

Considering Mokwa's tenure, weather cops being shot, kids being shot, rape statistics messed up, 40k lost from the evidence locker, or the union voting no confidence in his leadership, I wonder why he is still in control? It is because St. Louisans have no say who controls the Police. The State, through the Governor appointed Police Commission, controls the PD.

63104mom · PostJan 31, 2008#112008-01-31T16:05+00:00

Doug wrote:Considering Mokwa's tenure, weather cops being shot, kids being shot, rape statistics messed up, 40k lost from the evidence locker, or the union voting no confidence in his leadership, I wonder why he is still in control? It is because St. Louisans have no say who controls the Police. The State, through the Governor appointed Police Commission, controls the PD.

Will the weather cops help with the oncoming snow storm?

kujay · PostJan 31, 2008#122008-01-31T16:22+00:00

Doug wrote:Why do you think our crime is so high? Partly because we have no say in how policing is implemented. Now is the chance to reverse this policy which dates to the Civil War and only undermines St. Louis' economic and social development.

Yeah. That's why.

drunkrusski · PostJan 31, 2008#132008-01-31T22:25+00:00

No one really answered me when I asked how is changing control going to make a difference. Is that going to put more uniforms on the street? Or cut spending? Eliminate red tape? Or is this just a silly and oversimplified excuse for a problem that is much more complex??

Not everything can be solved through legislation. Up until I hear a specific and good reason why this should happen, I believe our legislation should be doing things that actually WILL make a difference. And if there is no things like that, well maybe it's time to start cutting government jobs. It's time to STOP these ridiculous legislations that believe they are going to change something. Anyone that actually works in the real world knows that legislating will only go so far.

jmedwick · PostJan 31, 2008#142008-01-31T22:56+00:00

^I don't know, it seems pretty straight-forward to me. The City does not have the ability to control its local police force. The Governor holds the right to appoint Police Department Board members, thereby taking away the ability of St. Louis citizens to control the composition of the Board. Local control of police is a basic power afforded to all municipalities with a local police force other than the City of St. Louis. This is less about making a difference in terms of efficiency (or lowering crime) and more about fairness and ensuring local control of what is a local (and not a State) matter. My understanding now is that the Board operates as a method of political back scratching, allowing the sitting governor to hand out favors some individuals.

A bill that would allow the City to create its own police force would pretty well address this problem by allowing the City to create its police force and control the composition of a Board.

publiceye · PostJan 31, 2008#152008-01-31T23:44+00:00

other than the City of St. Louis

uh, and Kansas City (state, like us).

Los Angeles PD operates under the supervision of a federal court.

drunkrusski · PostJan 31, 2008#162008-01-31T23:59+00:00

I see what you are saying. On the one hand, we live in the city, hence we should control it. But an argument could be made that if we want more state funds for other programs since we are the "state attraction" so to speak, then we should be fine with giving us some local rights. It's all how you look at it.

Point being is for me personally I care more about efficiency and how it affects the citizens then ideals. If I knew that it was more efficient to have a state control police force, I would do it.

doug · PostFeb 01, 2008#172008-02-01T21:12+00:00

Considering the crime disparity between North and South St. Louis, I find it hard to believe that our Police are operating efficiently. They certainly are not listening to the Aldermen, even after Carter was solicited drugs and got beat down. North St. Louis is vastly under served by all City Services, when in fact it is the area in greatest need. It makes no sense to me because one would think that the Police would be concentrating on the areas which have the most crime problems. Yet kids are dying on the streets while us in South St. Louis sit safely at home knowing the Police are, if not our neighbors, keeping our streets safe.

The citizens of North St. Louis are not only human beings but tax paying residents. They deserve equal protection under the law like any South Side resident currently enjoys. The system currently is not serving them. They neither have liberty, as they are trapped in their own neighborhood, and given the disparities they also lack equality. These are two principals upon which this country was founded. The system must change if we are to call this "The Land of the Free."

drunkrusski · PostFeb 01, 2008#182008-02-01T21:19+00:00

Doug wrote:Considering the crime disparity between North and South St. Louis, I find it hard to believe that our Police are operating efficiently. They certainly are not listening to the Aldermen, even after Carter was solicited drugs and got beat down. North St. Louis is vastly under served by all City Services, when in fact it is the area in greatest need. It makes no sense to me because one would think that the Police would be concentrating on the areas which have the most crime problems. Yet kids are dying on the streets while us in South St. Louis sit safely at home knowing the Police are, if not our neighbors, keeping our streets safe.

The citizens of North St. Louis are not only human beings but tax paying residents. They deserve equal protection under the law like any South Side resident currently enjoys. The system currently is not serving them. They neither have liberty, as they are trapped in their own neighborhood, and given the disparities they also lack equality. These are two principals upon which this country was founded. The system must change if we are to call this "The Land of the Free."

No offense, but I do not feel guilty about living in South City, nor should anyone else. I already pay some of the highest rates in the area to live here, because I believe in supporting the city. I live here not because I have to, but because I CHOOSE to. Have you ever thought that maybe the reason that cops do not like going to North City is because they are SCARED?

How can one cop be expected to patrol those streets? And yes, good idea about getting rid of cops from South City. As soon as you do that, the remaining good citizens that pay their taxes and support the economy are going to move out to the county, and what is going to be left of the City? I know I am going to be gone as soon as that happens. It makes total sense to provide more services to people that pay the most taxes. I know you are going to try to argue with me about tax bases, but anyone that has a half-brain realizes that the main tax base is in SOUTH Saint Louis.

jmedwick · PostFeb 01, 2008#192008-02-01T21:42+00:00

publiceye wrote:
other than the City of St. Louis

uh, and Kansas City (state, like us).

Los Angeles PD operates under the supervision of a federal court.

Thanks for the correction publiceye. I didn't know KC was in the same boat as the City of St. Louis. Let me guess and say that the LA PD is under court supervision because of lawsuits, not because the State decided to wrest away local control more than 140 years ago.

doug · PostFeb 01, 2008#202008-02-01T21:49+00:00

drunkrusski you are saying that those with more money should have more government services. That is corruption and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

North City residents, these are human beings like you and me! They are mothers, fathers, children, grandmothers and grandfathers. They are being wholly alienated and completely disregarded because of race and socioeconomic status. The United States does not discriminate when implementing government services. The bureaucracy, as Max Weber says, is blind and distributes services like a machine to those who need them. These are not private goods, thus the more you pay the more you get! These are public services and should be divided in an equitable manner!

The Police are scared? They are the STATE! They are STATE POWER! They are the GOVERNMENT! If government can be ***** with then how can we be secure as citizens? How can we be free? The Police have vast resources at their disposal. If the Police are scared then perhaps leadership should find new ways to motivate them. But first there must be new leadership which actually recognizes there is a problem which must be addressed.

stlmike · PostFeb 01, 2008#212008-02-01T21:50+00:00

JCity wrote:
Why do you think our crime is so high?
because we have a ton of poverty and a lot of stupid people that CHOOSE the path of a criminal...?

With all due respect, JCity, Doug's answer to his own rhetorical question was "partly" because of our mismanaged police force. To say that we would have less crime with a better police force is NOT to say that criminals are not to be held responsible for their crimes. If we had more fire departments, there would probably be less fires but that doesn't minimize what actually caused the fires.

steve · PostFeb 01, 2008#222008-02-01T22:20+00:00

Doug wrote:drunkrusski you are saying that those with more money should have more government services.

That's not what I read.

Doug wrote: That is corruption

No it's not.

Doug wrote:and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

No it's not.

Doug wrote:North City residents, these are human beings like you and me! They are mothers, fathers, children, grandmothers and grandfathers.

True, true, true.

Doug wrote: They are being wholly alienated and completely disregarded because of race and socioeconomic status.

Really? That's pretty strong, isn't it?

Doug wrote:The United States does not discriminate when implementing government services.

Ha!

Doug wrote:The bureaucracy, as Max Weber says,

Oh God no.

Doug wrote:The Police are scared? They are the STATE! They are STATE POWER! They are the GOVERNMENT!

They are also human beings who are often hated and feared by the people they are charged with protecting. They are also bound by a set of rules that their opponents don't follow. People want to kill them simply for the clothes they wear. How many people face that fact on a daily basis? Do you, Doug?

Doug wrote:If government can be f***ed with then how can we be secure as citizens?

Some would argue that we can't be secure without our own initiative.

Doug wrote:How can we be free?

A good question. You might want to turn to philosophy for an answer.

Doug wrote:The Police have vast resources at their disposal.

Debatable.

Doug wrote: If the Police are scared then perhaps leadership should find new ways to motivate them.

What might you suggest? And in any event, how would local control change anything? The School Board is run by a bunch of locals, and, well, you know.

Doug wrote:But first there must be new leadership which actually recognizes there is a problem which must be addressed.

How can you be so confident that the current leadership doesn't?

drunkrusski · PostFeb 01, 2008#232008-02-01T22:24+00:00

Steve, you pretty much summed up my beliefs on this one.

jcity · PostFeb 05, 2008#242008-02-05T04:55+00:00

Considering the crime disparity between North and South St. Louis, I find it hard to believe that our Police are operating efficiently.

So, if you had EXACTLY the same number of police officers policing the north and south sides, then ALL areas would have the same incidents of crime? Is that REALLY what you think? As if the problem is the LACK OF POLICE on the north side... maybe a greater percentage of the residents of these particular neighborhoods engage in criminal activity. You'd think that would be the OBVIOUS answer... I guess not to doug......

doug · PostFeb 05, 2008#252008-02-05T19:30+00:00

^The idea is certainly not to cut back services, especially Police, to areas which have higher rates of crime. If an area cannot solve the problem internally then your solution would be to deny government aid? That worked very well for New Orleans after Katrina. If you spent enough time on the North Side you would anecdotally notice a severe deficiency. If you talked to people you would understand how they feel. If you read the Team Four Plan you would understand why, politically, services have been cut. The big picture becomes less opaque when you see what Paul McKee is doing.

Posit I agree with you, which I obviously I do not. Then, my friend, the Police would need to be there to actually catch criminals! As they are absent, opportunities for community policing, and also the enforcement of law and order, are wholly squandered.