Faith leaders call for immediate resignation of IMPD chief

[jwamplerusa]

How well has that 'fixed' the office of Prosecutor?

It hasn't, but it is a step in the needed direction. Next steps? See Cameramonkey above. There are no quick fixes or panaceas to this mess. It is plug one hole after another, while your friends help heap rocks and earth on the dam from above.

 

[chipbennett]

How well has that 'fixed' the office of Prosecutor?

People still get whom they vote for. But at least with the Prosecutor, the people did actually vote for the office-holder.

 

[Jaybird1980]

How well has that 'fixed' the office of Prosecutor?

It's not about fixing the office of the prosecutor, it's about fixing the system. Having the head of a law enforcement organization beholden to another government executive is stupid. Cronyism is a real thing.

Removing that from the equation is a start

 

[chipbennett]

That fix is to eliminate 1 tick straight party voting. Make them vote for each. It’s at least a start. But still might not fix.

Oh, and strict term limits.

I don't have a problem with straight-ticket voting. In the Pareto diagram of problems, that one is way down the tail.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I don't have a problem with straight-ticket voting. In the Pareto diagram of problems, that one is way down the tail.

But that might help curb the issue specific to mears. If enough know nothing idiots get lazy and just vote for mayor, and enough fed up citizens take the time to vote for down ticket for his opponent we might have a shot at removing him.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It's not about fixing the office of the prosecutor, it's about fixing the system. Having the head of a law enforcement organization beholden to another government executive is stupid. Cronyism is a real thing.

Removing that from the equation is a start

Right. How has "the system" been effected by direct election of the prosecutor vs appointed? Is it better?

Law enforcement is part of the executive branch, part of checks and balances. It falling under the authority of the head of the executive branch is part of that checks and balances.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Right. How has "the system" been effected by direct election of the prosecutor vs appointed? Is it better?

Law enforcement is part of the executive branch, part of checks and balances. It falling under the authority of the head of the executive branch is part of that checks and balances.

Is a Sheriff appointed or elected?

If you're fine with the system that's ok. I'm not

 

[jwamplerusa]

Is a Sheriff appointed or elected?

If you're fine with the system that's ok. I'm not

A sheriff is elected, and is a constitutional office. Article 6, section 2.

The good ones understand that, and what it means. Their boss is, The People, not some POS hiding in a basement.

 

[Twangbanger]

Not that the election and distribution of funds to all the various groups would have anything to do with this.

Always follow the money

Sounds like Concerned Ministers wants some of that "love" Ten Points is apparently getting.

 

[Ark]

A sheriff is elected, and is a constitutional office. Article 6, section 2.

The good ones understand that, and what it means. Their boss is, The People, not some POS hiding in a basement.

If you let the people of Indianapolis elect a police chief tomorrow, do you really think they wouldn't elect a woke whackjob? These are the same people who reelected Hoggsett in a landslide.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Is a Sheriff appointed or elected?

If you're fine with the system that's ok. I'm not

So you still didn't answer how it's better or how it's going to turn out different then electing prosecutors. It's easy to propose a change. It's harder to think critically about it, justify it, and consider unintended consequences.

Being "fine with the system" isn't what's under discussion. If your proposed change fixes anything is. Frankly, it would make Indianapolis worse. Other places may have different outcomes. You want the same electorate that elected the current prosecutor to also elect the chief. Tell me how that fixes anything that's broken. Or do you imagine that suddenly the majority will vote for whatever imaginary candidate you have you think will "fix" it?

Who's running? Someone with law enforcement experience or a professional police impersonator like Frank Straub? Or a slick politician who's never even pretended to be the police?

Do we need to elect the Indiana State Police superintendent since the Indiana governor is over ISP? If it's bad to have the head of the executive branch running law enforcement, let's be consistent. State police, capitol police, conservation officers... How's that look? Statewide election? You want Marion county to have that much more influence over state wide law enforcement?

Are you starting to see why someone may not be "fine with the system" but also think your proposed fix is not moving the needle in the right direction?

 

[Jaybird1980]

So you still didn't answer how it's better or how it's going to turn out different then electing prosecutors. It's easy to propose a change. It's harder to think critically about it, justify it, and consider unintended consequences.

Being "fine with the system" isn't what's under discussion. If your proposed change fixes anything is. Frankly, it would make Indianapolis worse. Other places may have different outcomes. You want the same electorate that elected the current prosecutor to also elect the chief. Tell me how that fixes anything that's broken. Or do you imagine that suddenly the majority will vote for whatever imaginary candidate you have you think will "fix" it?

Who's running? Someone with law enforcement experience or a professional police impersonator like Frank Straub? Or a slick politician who's never even pretended to be the police?

Do we need to elect the Indiana State Police superintendent since the Indiana governor is over ISP? If it's bad to have the head of the executive branch running law enforcement, let's be consistent. State police, capitol police, conservation officers... How's that look? Statewide election? You want Marion county to have that much more influence over state wide law enforcement?

Are you starting to see why someone may not be "fine with the system" but also think your proposed fix is not moving the needle in the right direction?

Indianapolis is not the only city in Indiana,There are 91 other counties besides Marion county in Indiana. It's not always about Indy/Marion county.

Just because corruption runs deep in Marion county does not mean we don't have the entire rest of the State to keep from becoming Marion/Indy.

Even if it doesn't fix Indy doesn't mean it's a step in the wrong direction. I do know that continuing to do the exact same thing will never fix Indy or anything for that matter. You guys let Indy become Chicago, there is no quick fix to repair it, ignoring it will not work.

I grew up in a small town watching a ****** mayor use his chief to send out the hitmen to harass people and opponents. He was caught using city workers and equipment to build houses and used the force against the people who were trying to hold him accountable.

The testimonies during the concealed carry shenanigans reinforced my beliefs that the heads of all law enforcement in Indiana should be an elected position. And yes that includes ISP superintendent, the governor having leverage over a head of a police force does not lead to anything good.

I also have no problem putting requirements in place for who can run.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Indianapolis is not the only city in Indiana,There are 91 other counties besides Marion county in Indiana. It's not always about Indy/Marion county.

Just because corruption runs deep in Marion county does not mean we don't have the entire rest of the State to keep from becoming Marion/Indy.
...

I grew up in a small town watching a ****** mayor use his chief to send out the hitmen to harass people and opponents.

So, from your own story, corruption isn't limited to Indy and directly elected people are subject to failings of corruption as well. Still not seeing how you think it'll move the needle. It just makes another person who has to campaign constantly instead of doing their job, someone who'll swap talent for loyalty, someone with incentive to ignore crimes from the "right" people or donors, and my personal favorite corruption of sheriff's departments: dollars for badges. Buy your way into a le position for LEOSA, never actually do the job, or just pay for promotion.

If you want *more* politics in law enforcement, this is a great plan to do that. Frankly, I think there's more than enough already.

 

[Jaybird1980]

So, from your own story, corruption isn't limited to Indy and directly elected people are subject to failings of corruption as well. Still not seeing how you think it'll move the needle. It just makes another person who has to campaign constantly instead of doing their job, someone who'll swap talent for loyalty, someone with incentive to ignore crimes from the "right" people or donors, and my personal favorite corruption of sheriff's departments: dollars for badges. Buy your way into a le position for LEOSA, never actually do the job, or just pay for promotion.

If you want *more* politics in law enforcement, this is a great plan to do that. Frankly, I think there's more than enough already.

Yes you can't stop corruption, but you can put layers in to try to hold people accountable.

Right now you have chiefs able to blame mayors for failure or mayors blaming chiefs. Just playing a finger pointing game instead of being able to hold someone accountable.

The highlighted part you already have, figure heads ignoring crime because of loyalty to another figure head that put them in office or their donors. The summer of love is an example.

What is your suggestion to get politics out of law enforcement and still be able to hold them accountable?

Mayors, Chiefs, Superintendents, Judges and Prosecutors doing each other's bidding is infuriating to me.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yes you can't stop corruption, but you can put layers in to try to hold people accountable.

Right now you have chiefs able to blame mayors for failure or mayors blaming chiefs. Just playing a finger pointing game instead of being able to hold someone accountable.

The highlighted part you already have, figure heads ignoring crime because of loyalty to another figure head that put them in office or their donors. The summer of love is an example.

What is your suggestion to get politics out of law enforcement and still be able to hold them accountable?

Mayors, Chiefs, Superintendents, Judges and Prosecutors doing each other's bidding is infuriating to me.

I guess I see the layer of the chief differently. Even before I was a cop, I remember in a CJ class at U Of L: The average tenure of a CoP in the US is 3.8 years, slightly less than the tenure of a mayor. The mayor's job is to deliver good news. The CoP's job is to deliver bad news.

There's a lot of truth to that. Sometimes a politician needs someone to blame to do the right, but unpopular, thing. Why do prosecutors punt obvious cases to the grand jury?

The Sheriff is elected. He doesn't control his own budget. Have you not seen the various finger pointing and political wrangling that resulted there?

Personally, I prefer the chief model. If the mayor says give my crony a badge, there's one more layer there to say no. If the mayor removes him for that, it becomes public.

Ultimately the only answer is to have more people vote for better candidates and to get better people in leadership positions. Conservatives are hosing themselves in the long run with all their "don't join LE or the Mil because it's so woke now" messaging. Abandoning the battlefield instead of trying to make change from within is absolutely disastrous long term.

 

[Route 45]

Ultimately the only answer is to have more people vote for better candidates and to get better people in leadership positions. Conservatives are hosing themselves in the long run with all their "don't join LE or the Mil because it's so woke now" messaging. Abandoning the battlefield instead of trying to make change from within is absolutely disastrous long term.

One or two woke idiots in positions of command makes all the conservatism of the lower ranks impotent. All the conservative cop does today in a big city is needlessly risk his life, his family and his livelihood to the whims of the George Floyd worshipers. If he’s doing anything other than the bare minimum until he can jump ship, he is a fool.

 

[Jaybird1980]

I guess I see the layer of the chief differently. Even before I was a cop, I remember in a CJ class at U Of L: The average tenure of a CoP in the US is 3.8 years, slightly less than the tenure of a mayor. The mayor's job is to deliver good news. The CoP's job is to deliver bad news.

There's a lot of truth to that. Sometimes a politician needs someone to blame to do the right, but unpopular, thing. Why do prosecutors punt obvious cases to the grand jury?

The Sheriff is elected. He doesn't control his own budget. Have you not seen the various finger pointing and political wrangling that resulted there?

Personally, I prefer the chief model. If the mayor says give my crony a badge, there's one more layer there to say no. If the mayor removes him for that, it becomes public.

Ultimately the only answer is to have more people vote for better candidates and to get better people in leadership positions. Conservatives are hosing themselves in the long run with all their "don't join LE or the Mil because it's so woke now" messaging. Abandoning the battlefield instead of trying to make change from within is absolutely disastrous long term.

That part I agree with 100%

To me if the sheriff's budget is problematic then it's up to him to explain to his constituents that the commissioners have failed them, and to educate the public on the problem. Tell them exactly what the problem is instead of playing political games, and they should be able to do that if they really want change because they don't/shouldn't have anyone with leverage over them.

I think the only way you're going to get people to vote better is to educate them on things.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

3 businessmen allegedly bribed VA sheriff to get appointed as auxiliary deputy sheriffs

Several businessmen and Virginia Sheriff Scott Jenkins were indicted on corruption charges. The businessmen allegedly bribed Jenkins to get appointed as auxiliary deputy sheriffs.

www.foxnews.com

Another badges for dollars scheme.

Remind me again how having someone who has to raise money to keep his job every 4 years is better for direct control of law enforcement? It's not a fix, it's just trading problems for different problems.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

3 businessmen allegedly bribed VA sheriff to get appointed as auxiliary deputy sheriffs

Several businessmen and Virginia Sheriff Scott Jenkins were indicted on corruption charges. The businessmen allegedly bribed Jenkins to get appointed as auxiliary deputy sheriffs.

www.foxnews.com

Another badges for dollars scheme.

Remind me again how having someone who has to raise money to keep his job every 4 years is better for direct control of law enforcement? It's not a fix, it's just trading problems for different problems.

No idea about now, but lake co sheriff dept used to hand out badges like candy. A guy I knew uncle was a Hammond city councilman, both of them had one. The mechanic at the county garage did also.

 

[Indyhd]

No idea about now, but lake co sheriff dept used to hand out badges like candy. A guy I knew uncle was a Hammond city councilman, both of them had one. The mechanic at the county garage did also.

Well Lake County has always been a pool of corruption. I left Porter County for job opportunities, but was very active in many issues in Lake County in the late 70's early 80's.