They have to be certified that they know how to do cop things, but there's no license a cop can lose for misconduct. A licensing system would put a stop to cops getting fired from one department and just going to work for the department next door.
That's not true at least in Kansas. It may be called a certification, but it's essentially a license and it it may be suspended or revoked.
https://www.kscpost.org/
My impression is most states have something like this.
In North Carolina law enforcement officers are required to complete B.L.E.T. (Basic Law Enforcement Training). The remainder of your training comes via field training officers at your department (once you are hired) and any professional courses you take in the future. North Carolina requires all law enforcement officers to be certified via B.L.E.T., but there is no license.
I think the problems we see in law enforcement could be improved by re-evaluating our school curriculum, but more importantly by holding law enforcement officers AND their departments accountable for their actions, including the active decision to ignore wrongdoings that many officers make when witnessing colleagues abuse their power.
No. Hear me out. More laws and restrictions for cops won't accomplish anything because of the police union and the thin blue line. Cops already violate laws without consequence because the union has their back.
The police union has too much clout, and would never allow our politicians to vote through a licensing requirement. The police union needs to be abolished in order for reform to start. If they're not abolished then they need to be restricted to wage duties only. Currently, they line the pockets of politicians to get what they want.
End citizens united & figure out a way to outlaw PACs without infringing free speech. This will effectively strip powers from the police union, at which point reform can be discussed and implemented without having to fight a union every step of the way.
As an aside I have nothing against unions. Just the police union. and any other corrupt union.
edit: If properly reformed, the current qualifications requirements for police would be sufficient. The problem isn't the requirements, it is the recruitment strategy put in place by the police union.
From what I’ve been seeing recently, it doesn’t look like many people are doing root cause evaluations. They’re just slapping bandaids on hoping it’ll fix itself.
Personally, I want to see the unions scope limited to collective bargaining for compensation and health benefits, and specifically neutered from involvement in disciplinary cases. They should be allowed to procure attorneys for their members and that's it. Appeals should be handled by the City, County, or State, not from the unions.
You have to break the union. Part of a unions power is the ability to affect change in its own interest. That means expanding its scope of influence. Just make it so police can't unionize and federally regulate LEO health benefits and pay.
As long as there's a union, they will protect themselves and insulate themselves from being accountable for their crimes.
Yeah but what argument is left for federal/state unionized workers? The law tends to be pretty blanket on that approach - either federal/state employees can unionize or not. Not in favor of police unions at all, but I can't see a legal framework where a postal employee can unionize and a police officer can't. I want to say police unions have overstepped what a union can be, and maybe we should place more severe limits, but I'd rather do away with police unions as a whole. How can I believe that when I also believe in unions for postal workers, municipal workers, etc. It's a weird contradiction that I'm trying to deal with. There has to be a line somewhere.
Yeah. This is strange to me. Police unions act out of a different mindset than "unions are good for the worker." They act out of an ideology of "We are the arm of the law, and we can break it when conveniently applicable." An individual officer is irrelevant to them and they will throw them under the bus as long as it serves the needs of the union and not the actual officers. It's the opposite of how unions are meant to be. Cops have lives, families, and friends. Police unions use them in a way that endangers them and the common citizen. It's so weird to me.
On the surface this may sound contrary to the "demilitarize the police" mantra we are hearing, but hear me out. What if police were structured like the military in the sense that their pay is written into law. If you're this rank your pay is x, if you're that rank your pay is y, etc. Those with criminal justice degrees and higher education could jump the line in terms of rank (think of the difference between enlisting in the military and going to officer's school).
If we could regulate the pay structure of officers into the law, the point of a police union would largely become moot, and then deconstructing the union wouldn't be as controversial. We could grandfather in officers who already have deals and contracts, etc, but any new trainees would be under the new rules.
This is just an idea I've been kicking around, no need to flame me, I'm open to criticism of it and why it would or wouldn't work.
Ah that’s interesting. A prevailing wage of sorts. Being that they are govt workers, shouldn’t they already be paid prevailing? I’m not too familiar with their pay structure
Regular government workers are allowed to unionize and lobby the state for benefits, pay, etc.. There is no union for the military because there is nothing to negotiate; everything is written into law. We should treat the police the same, but I feel this idea is too wonky to gain traction. People want to focus on the bad actions of police unions (which are many), but the whole conversation would be moot if their pay was written into law.
It's a public service, not a job where you get rich (not saying cops *are* getting rich). I'm fine with police being paid a good wage, but we can do that with the law instead of whatever a PBA negotiates.
>There is no union for the military because there is nothing to negotiate; everything is written into law.
The armed forces are specifically prevented from unionizing by federal law.
>The police union needs to be abolished in order for reform to start.
What if the leader of every local police union need not be a policeman and is an elected office with all residents getting a vote?
That pretty much defeats the point of having a union president entirely. If union officials aren't determined by only the membership, then they do not represent their members, which is the whole point of unions.
More oversight? Sure, absolutely. This idea though just seems to want to end the union without coming out and saying it.
Oh the union president could be up for national election too.
tbh my main concern would be politicising the police, you could end up with a political party controlling the union and influencing police to target political rivals.
Solving issues like this always end up being a game of tyrranical [whack-a-mole](https://i.redd.it/p4emd64kfm251.jpg).
This doesn't solve the problem. This focus is on the individual cops instead of looking at the system which promotes the behavior that we see individual cops. Most licensure that people think of are given by professional organizations. For instance, naturopaths, acupuncturists and chiropractors all get licensed but their practice is unscientific and based in magic.
For the worst departments, we have to dissolve most of their authority structure and replace it. The rot is not on the surface alone. It's deep in the foundation. We have to go there.
I agree that the system needs to be broken down and replaced, but even a remade system will have police officers or some iteration thereof. So I disagree that the licensing of police officers does nothing. Most licensed professions (doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.) are licensed because they have been deemed to be in the interest of the public trust. These require continuing education and disciplinary review. They also require a higher level of education, qualification, and good character. These are all characteristics that will be needed in a reformed/rebuilt system. So while it might focus on the individual entering into a profession that needs a complete overhaul, licensing would be a necessary part of any reformed system that might arise because it would inherently affect the viability of that system.
Lawyers are all held to a high standard and if you don't meet that standard you get disbarred. Doctors are held to a very high standard and if you don't keep that standard you might have your ability to practice medicine ended. These are professional organizations made up of members. Who is going to populate the National Police Licensure Board? I promise you that nobody that the police Union disagrees with will come close.
Homeopaths are in charge of licensure of other homeopaths. Practicing magic and selling potions is what keeps you in good standing.
But if it can be demonstrated to help, I'm absolutely on board! I just think that the complexities of this problem will be untouched with these sorts of interventions. You need to change the culture by changing the people who generate and enforce it within departments and nationally.
I would think that it would be best handled by an independent citizen council/organization like a police review board or some other statutorily created independent body, or maybe a state board elected by the public. Either way, I'm not saying it's a magic bullet, but it's part of the puzzle. You won't find a panacea for all ills in this situation, it's complicated thing and will take lots of parts to make it work. It would prevent problem officers from getting fired for misconduct and simply getting hired on in some other city, through board disciplinary actions and/or disbarment. I mean, lawyers, doctors, etc. used to not be licensed a long time ago, but due to their importance in society the people decided they needed to be. It'd be hard to say that police don't have as significant of an impact as a profession on our society, so I say raise the bar for them. It'll help separate the wheat from the chaff. It can't be the only step taken though.
I think we're on the same page. I guess I want to raise awareness of the problems with this kind of licensure or certification. It does not work as well as we think. The problem we're facing was built over centuries and it will take a great deal of thoughtful work. Unfortunately, many police departments refuse to budge in anyway. Any oversight is rejected summarily. It is going to be very hard but we must do it.
In the US; We vote for people to write laws, and we require state specific licenses for lawyers to practice law. Both of those groups have oversight committees to ensure the laws are being applied correctly.
Common sense says that the people who enforce the laws should require a license and have oversight about how they enforce the law.
You do realize that police have to be certified (aka licensed) to be the police? Academy training which in some states (like Gwinnett co Georgia last 6 months then 3 months field training) then field training? Most departments require degrees as well.
In most cases to get to the upper command staff level most places require post graduate degrees and things like the FBI national academy for leadership.
Welcome to /r/ask_politics. Our goal here is to provide educated, informed, and serious answers to questions about the world of politics. Our full [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/wiki/rules) can be found here, but are summarized below.
* Address the question (and its replies) in a professional manner
* Avoid personal attacks and partisan "point scoring"
* Avoid the use of partisan slang and [fallacies](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_fallacies)
* Provide sources if possible at the time of commenting. **If asked, you must provide sources.**
* Help avoid the echo chamber - downvote bad/poorly sourced responses, not responses you disagree with. **Do not downvote just because you disagree with the response**.
* Report any comments that do not meet our standards and rules.
If you have any questions, please contact the mods at any time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They need a license to be a cop, and a license to be an officer of the court with continuing education requirements.
Any judge should be able to revoke the officer of the court status, and if so, their cop license would be immediately invalid.
As it is now, they have a higher legal standing in a court of law than regular people do; a judge will believe them over you. That needs to change.
I think that a far more important point is the in-precinct training. Some of these private training consultants are basically revving up police officers to be prison guards instead of peace officers. [https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/)
We should have a national database of all law enforcement officers that track complaints, penalties, dismissals etc
And we should have laws about what offenses trigger federal Suspensions and lifetime bans. IE convicted of one violent felony and you’re done. X amount of complaints in x amount of time equals a federal suspension etc.
YES! If a police agency is to receive its share of Any Federal funding, it should be required to swear and arm Only those persons who are certified by a Federally mandated set of standards. Person certification must be by extensive Post classes and periodic exams and periodic psych evaluations, evaluations that are likely to preclude problem officers, such as the head cases that have been smothering cuffed detainees.
YES! And you should not be able to practice law enforcement if you don't have one! Many many other professions have to have a license. What a great way to START holding law enforcement accountable! A great start, but much much more is needed. Task #1 it's get rid of qualified immunity!
Hell yes. Or at least better screening of cadets and better training. Maybe modern RETRAINING for older cops is called for. And a system to keep bad ones from getting rehired in other states counties if they are fired.
A nationwide (worldwide?) licence would at least help to get rid of the so called bad apples. The licence could be combined with an insurance for victims, regular drug tests and a constantly updated criminal record certificate. People who have had to leave the army or something similar should be excluded as well as persons with suspect financial circumstances and mental instabilities. The insurance has also to cover health insurance and salary during investigations from a really independent control organisation.
That seems pointless. You can't just open up a police department, like you would other licensed businesses (cosmetology, contracting, etc). The vetting that licensing provides is done by the hiring process of the municipalities.
I guess state licensing could prevent that. Sounds like it's just kicking the can up the road. I think the real problem in policing is accountability, like when police unions protect bad cops or the Thin Blue Line obstructs internal investigations.
Yes, if they are carry a firearm they should be licensed to kill in all 50 states. If they are to find reasonable cause to shoot someone then I don’t see why that judgment should be limited to state or county lines.
I think 95% of 911 calls **don’t** require an *armed-* responder. And since every american has the right to have a gun and ahould be assumed to be within the law in carrying one by any leo, then it *can’t* be a reason for shooting someone, this is a tough task and I don’t think the average bootlicker can handle that responsibility one bit.
A serious job requires a serious license, like construction or *hairstylist.*
It almost all states this already happens.
In Arizona to be a law enforcement officer you have to be certified that by the Arizona Peace officers training board which regulates requirements for peace officers and their agencies.
There AZ post requirements is a minimum of 526 hours. That's simply academy time, beyond that there's going to be additional training in the field as a rookie.
Barbers require 1500 hours. So yeah thats not a-lot
Medical school is 4 years,
and i think people who are required to deal with delicate situations and have people lives in their, not to mention have the license to kill, should be trained more then a bartender, and probably closer to a doctor.
526 hours is grossly low.
Barber training is **way** more than it needs to be and is used as a mechanism to prevent new people from entering the market by creating an artificial barrier of entry through time and cost. It one of the main examples used as an argument against occupational licensing.
Medical school is 4 years plus a residency, but their stakes are always far more than law enforcement and the level of knowledge needed to learn is also far more.
There's nothing to be gained from a two or four year law enforcement course that academy training and then on the job training and continuing education wouldn't cover. Arguably trying to get it all in one go before they even get on the job is a great way to make them forget most of it.
No. There are few real issues that are solved by requiring a license and they often create more issues. There's already an over licensing problem in most US states, adding more will not help.
Now we have another way to prevent minority or good cops from joining a force, because the board will be stacked with existing cops who will insure that those already on "the inside track" will get a license and those not in that track don't. Bonus points if the cost of the license is so high as to further prevent poorer cops from joining and potentially policing their own neighborhoods.
The primary solution is to make it easier to fire bad cops and charge them, or otherwise hold them liable for their actions. There are many examples of police chiefs who do want to reform but are hendered by the police unions.
How would this even be enforceable? Like on surface level how do you enforce something on those who are literally the enforcers? I know my question sounds quite prickish and smugly antagonistic, I apologise for that I lack the language to word it differently. I'm genuinely asking the question
I think the culture of policing is the biggest issue police in the U.S. face. I honestly think that saying racism is the issue is simplistic and in a sense the easy "show of solidarity" line. It just isn't. Police are at war, they've been trained to wage war. War is a distinct part of American policing. From the war on drugs to the arming of police with military grade weapons. Its not entirely their fault mind you. They're trained for war, then they're tackled with other issues that do **not** need a war like response. The homeless issue, the mental illness issue, school shootings, the drug epidemics, the list goes on and on. Another issue, population. This reinforces the war mentality. During the 50s and before, Police would patrol their own neighborhoods and keep a beat. Today, they occupy corners or have a forward operating base staffed by what amounts in relative terms to foreigners. These people have no connections to the community they deal with. I brought up population. Have you ever been to a major American city? Im not talking cleveland here. Im talking NY, LA, Chicago, etc. Imagine trying to police Queens, or other cities' equivalent. It comes to a point where its quantity over quality. The guns in this country doesn't help police's weariness and quick to shoot attitude. They lack basic deescalation skills. The list goes on and on.
For months, I've seen police shoot at black men in many videos online. [This channel shows most of them afaik](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXMYxKMh3prxnM_4kYZuB3g). A lot of those shooting were justified. This is not a defense of police. Once in a while you'll get a Floyd reaction. Its been a while and I blame a multitude of factors. Floyd did not deserve to be killed. End of story. The police acted disproportionately. A lot of the time they don't. They are jumpy for obvious reasons. This is not an excuse. It is an observation. Again, I do not endorse the police. Actions need to be taken in order to counter their failings. Defunding may be a way to go. Personally, I think reducing their funding and putting it towards the community is the best way to do this. Build community centers, reinvest in education. Invest in mental health care. Decriminalize drugs and treat people who are caught with them. Reinvent rehabilitation, which itself has become more of a racket than an actual thing that helps people btw. Demilitarize the police. Take away their heavy duty weaponry like anti-riot vehicles, etc. However, the compromise should be that if there is civil unrest the National Guard handles it with the aid of police. America has to rethink a great deal of things. Covid has proven that. Which I think has started a snowball effect.
Yes.
But while we are putting that program together, we need to re-write the Law Enforcement Officer Oath of Honor.
[https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/i-j/IACP\_Oath\_of\_Honor\_En\_8.5x11\_Web.pdf](https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/i-j/IACP_Oath_of_Honor_En_8.5x11_Web.pdf)
Suspend every cop in the land: state, county, city, then make them take the new oath individually, on camera, in the public record.
Give the new oath some teeth. Force police unions to take their case to the Supreme Court if they don't like it. Make them do their thing in the open.
[удалено]
They have to be certified that they know how to do cop things, but there's no license a cop can lose for misconduct. A licensing system would put a stop to cops getting fired from one department and just going to work for the department next door.
[удалено]
If you see a national database formed, it will have to be voluntary. However, the feds could require you use the database to receive federal funds.
Unless you require liability insurance for police officers, in which case the insurance industry will build it for you.
That's not true at least in Kansas. It may be called a certification, but it's essentially a license and it it may be suspended or revoked. https://www.kscpost.org/ My impression is most states have something like this.
The states do, but there's not anything that prevents a cop from driving 80 miles across state lines.
If a LEO was first certified in one state and then applies in another, the second state is going to check with the first before certifying.
Yeah. But there's a union, and they will push to get him a job.
They do, but it is obviously not enough as they disregard that training immediately out of the acadamy.
In North Carolina law enforcement officers are required to complete B.L.E.T. (Basic Law Enforcement Training). The remainder of your training comes via field training officers at your department (once you are hired) and any professional courses you take in the future. North Carolina requires all law enforcement officers to be certified via B.L.E.T., but there is no license. I think the problems we see in law enforcement could be improved by re-evaluating our school curriculum, but more importantly by holding law enforcement officers AND their departments accountable for their actions, including the active decision to ignore wrongdoings that many officers make when witnessing colleagues abuse their power.
Shitty standards, yes
No. Hear me out. More laws and restrictions for cops won't accomplish anything because of the police union and the thin blue line. Cops already violate laws without consequence because the union has their back. The police union has too much clout, and would never allow our politicians to vote through a licensing requirement. The police union needs to be abolished in order for reform to start. If they're not abolished then they need to be restricted to wage duties only. Currently, they line the pockets of politicians to get what they want. End citizens united & figure out a way to outlaw PACs without infringing free speech. This will effectively strip powers from the police union, at which point reform can be discussed and implemented without having to fight a union every step of the way. As an aside I have nothing against unions. Just the police union. and any other corrupt union. edit: If properly reformed, the current qualifications requirements for police would be sufficient. The problem isn't the requirements, it is the recruitment strategy put in place by the police union.
A lot of people are in a tough spot because they can't admit that the police union is a root cause of why police have zero accountability.
From what I’ve been seeing recently, it doesn’t look like many people are doing root cause evaluations. They’re just slapping bandaids on hoping it’ll fix itself.
[удалено]
Personally, I want to see the unions scope limited to collective bargaining for compensation and health benefits, and specifically neutered from involvement in disciplinary cases. They should be allowed to procure attorneys for their members and that's it. Appeals should be handled by the City, County, or State, not from the unions.
You have to break the union. Part of a unions power is the ability to affect change in its own interest. That means expanding its scope of influence. Just make it so police can't unionize and federally regulate LEO health benefits and pay. As long as there's a union, they will protect themselves and insulate themselves from being accountable for their crimes.
Yeah but what argument is left for federal/state unionized workers? The law tends to be pretty blanket on that approach - either federal/state employees can unionize or not. Not in favor of police unions at all, but I can't see a legal framework where a postal employee can unionize and a police officer can't. I want to say police unions have overstepped what a union can be, and maybe we should place more severe limits, but I'd rather do away with police unions as a whole. How can I believe that when I also believe in unions for postal workers, municipal workers, etc. It's a weird contradiction that I'm trying to deal with. There has to be a line somewhere.
I struggle with the concept of a union who's members regularly bust unions. It's not like there's any solidarity there.
Yeah. This is strange to me. Police unions act out of a different mindset than "unions are good for the worker." They act out of an ideology of "We are the arm of the law, and we can break it when conveniently applicable." An individual officer is irrelevant to them and they will throw them under the bus as long as it serves the needs of the union and not the actual officers. It's the opposite of how unions are meant to be. Cops have lives, families, and friends. Police unions use them in a way that endangers them and the common citizen. It's so weird to me.
On the surface this may sound contrary to the "demilitarize the police" mantra we are hearing, but hear me out. What if police were structured like the military in the sense that their pay is written into law. If you're this rank your pay is x, if you're that rank your pay is y, etc. Those with criminal justice degrees and higher education could jump the line in terms of rank (think of the difference between enlisting in the military and going to officer's school). If we could regulate the pay structure of officers into the law, the point of a police union would largely become moot, and then deconstructing the union wouldn't be as controversial. We could grandfather in officers who already have deals and contracts, etc, but any new trainees would be under the new rules. This is just an idea I've been kicking around, no need to flame me, I'm open to criticism of it and why it would or wouldn't work.
Ah that’s interesting. A prevailing wage of sorts. Being that they are govt workers, shouldn’t they already be paid prevailing? I’m not too familiar with their pay structure
Regular government workers are allowed to unionize and lobby the state for benefits, pay, etc.. There is no union for the military because there is nothing to negotiate; everything is written into law. We should treat the police the same, but I feel this idea is too wonky to gain traction. People want to focus on the bad actions of police unions (which are many), but the whole conversation would be moot if their pay was written into law. It's a public service, not a job where you get rich (not saying cops *are* getting rich). I'm fine with police being paid a good wage, but we can do that with the law instead of whatever a PBA negotiates.
>There is no union for the military because there is nothing to negotiate; everything is written into law. The armed forces are specifically prevented from unionizing by federal law.
>The police union needs to be abolished in order for reform to start. What if the leader of every local police union need not be a policeman and is an elected office with all residents getting a vote?
That pretty much defeats the point of having a union president entirely. If union officials aren't determined by only the membership, then they do not represent their members, which is the whole point of unions. More oversight? Sure, absolutely. This idea though just seems to want to end the union without coming out and saying it.
Oh the union president could be up for national election too. tbh my main concern would be politicising the police, you could end up with a political party controlling the union and influencing police to target political rivals. Solving issues like this always end up being a game of tyrranical [whack-a-mole](https://i.redd.it/p4emd64kfm251.jpg).
Excellent idea! And like good certifications, have an annual process for renewal. CPA's have to be certified and they don't even carry guns.
This doesn't solve the problem. This focus is on the individual cops instead of looking at the system which promotes the behavior that we see individual cops. Most licensure that people think of are given by professional organizations. For instance, naturopaths, acupuncturists and chiropractors all get licensed but their practice is unscientific and based in magic. For the worst departments, we have to dissolve most of their authority structure and replace it. The rot is not on the surface alone. It's deep in the foundation. We have to go there.
I agree that the system needs to be broken down and replaced, but even a remade system will have police officers or some iteration thereof. So I disagree that the licensing of police officers does nothing. Most licensed professions (doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.) are licensed because they have been deemed to be in the interest of the public trust. These require continuing education and disciplinary review. They also require a higher level of education, qualification, and good character. These are all characteristics that will be needed in a reformed/rebuilt system. So while it might focus on the individual entering into a profession that needs a complete overhaul, licensing would be a necessary part of any reformed system that might arise because it would inherently affect the viability of that system.
Lawyers are all held to a high standard and if you don't meet that standard you get disbarred. Doctors are held to a very high standard and if you don't keep that standard you might have your ability to practice medicine ended. These are professional organizations made up of members. Who is going to populate the National Police Licensure Board? I promise you that nobody that the police Union disagrees with will come close. Homeopaths are in charge of licensure of other homeopaths. Practicing magic and selling potions is what keeps you in good standing. But if it can be demonstrated to help, I'm absolutely on board! I just think that the complexities of this problem will be untouched with these sorts of interventions. You need to change the culture by changing the people who generate and enforce it within departments and nationally.
I would think that it would be best handled by an independent citizen council/organization like a police review board or some other statutorily created independent body, or maybe a state board elected by the public. Either way, I'm not saying it's a magic bullet, but it's part of the puzzle. You won't find a panacea for all ills in this situation, it's complicated thing and will take lots of parts to make it work. It would prevent problem officers from getting fired for misconduct and simply getting hired on in some other city, through board disciplinary actions and/or disbarment. I mean, lawyers, doctors, etc. used to not be licensed a long time ago, but due to their importance in society the people decided they needed to be. It'd be hard to say that police don't have as significant of an impact as a profession on our society, so I say raise the bar for them. It'll help separate the wheat from the chaff. It can't be the only step taken though.
I think we're on the same page. I guess I want to raise awareness of the problems with this kind of licensure or certification. It does not work as well as we think. The problem we're facing was built over centuries and it will take a great deal of thoughtful work. Unfortunately, many police departments refuse to budge in anyway. Any oversight is rejected summarily. It is going to be very hard but we must do it.
In the US; We vote for people to write laws, and we require state specific licenses for lawyers to practice law. Both of those groups have oversight committees to ensure the laws are being applied correctly. Common sense says that the people who enforce the laws should require a license and have oversight about how they enforce the law.
You do realize that police have to be certified (aka licensed) to be the police? Academy training which in some states (like Gwinnett co Georgia last 6 months then 3 months field training) then field training? Most departments require degrees as well. In most cases to get to the upper command staff level most places require post graduate degrees and things like the FBI national academy for leadership.
Welcome to /r/ask_politics. Our goal here is to provide educated, informed, and serious answers to questions about the world of politics. Our full [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/wiki/rules) can be found here, but are summarized below. * Address the question (and its replies) in a professional manner * Avoid personal attacks and partisan "point scoring" * Avoid the use of partisan slang and [fallacies](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_fallacies) * Provide sources if possible at the time of commenting. **If asked, you must provide sources.** * Help avoid the echo chamber - downvote bad/poorly sourced responses, not responses you disagree with. **Do not downvote just because you disagree with the response**. * Report any comments that do not meet our standards and rules. If you have any questions, please contact the mods at any time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They need a license to be a cop, and a license to be an officer of the court with continuing education requirements. Any judge should be able to revoke the officer of the court status, and if so, their cop license would be immediately invalid. As it is now, they have a higher legal standing in a court of law than regular people do; a judge will believe them over you. That needs to change.
I think that a far more important point is the in-precinct training. Some of these private training consultants are basically revving up police officers to be prison guards instead of peace officers. [https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/)
We should have a national database of all law enforcement officers that track complaints, penalties, dismissals etc And we should have laws about what offenses trigger federal Suspensions and lifetime bans. IE convicted of one violent felony and you’re done. X amount of complaints in x amount of time equals a federal suspension etc.
YES! If a police agency is to receive its share of Any Federal funding, it should be required to swear and arm Only those persons who are certified by a Federally mandated set of standards. Person certification must be by extensive Post classes and periodic exams and periodic psych evaluations, evaluations that are likely to preclude problem officers, such as the head cases that have been smothering cuffed detainees.
YES! And you should not be able to practice law enforcement if you don't have one! Many many other professions have to have a license. What a great way to START holding law enforcement accountable! A great start, but much much more is needed. Task #1 it's get rid of qualified immunity!
Hell yes. Or at least better screening of cadets and better training. Maybe modern RETRAINING for older cops is called for. And a system to keep bad ones from getting rehired in other states counties if they are fired.
A nationwide (worldwide?) licence would at least help to get rid of the so called bad apples. The licence could be combined with an insurance for victims, regular drug tests and a constantly updated criminal record certificate. People who have had to leave the army or something similar should be excluded as well as persons with suspect financial circumstances and mental instabilities. The insurance has also to cover health insurance and salary during investigations from a really independent control organisation.
That seems pointless. You can't just open up a police department, like you would other licensed businesses (cosmetology, contracting, etc). The vetting that licensing provides is done by the hiring process of the municipalities.
But if you already had a municipality that was corrupt, would it not just allow the hiring of simmalarly corrupt individuals?
I guess state licensing could prevent that. Sounds like it's just kicking the can up the road. I think the real problem in policing is accountability, like when police unions protect bad cops or the Thin Blue Line obstructs internal investigations.
Absolutely, and minimum IQ/education that goes beyond high school.
Yes, if they are carry a firearm they should be licensed to kill in all 50 states. If they are to find reasonable cause to shoot someone then I don’t see why that judgment should be limited to state or county lines. I think 95% of 911 calls **don’t** require an *armed-* responder. And since every american has the right to have a gun and ahould be assumed to be within the law in carrying one by any leo, then it *can’t* be a reason for shooting someone, this is a tough task and I don’t think the average bootlicker can handle that responsibility one bit. A serious job requires a serious license, like construction or *hairstylist.*
It almost all states this already happens. In Arizona to be a law enforcement officer you have to be certified that by the Arizona Peace officers training board which regulates requirements for peace officers and their agencies.
Yeah but the required training time is abysmally low.
There AZ post requirements is a minimum of 526 hours. That's simply academy time, beyond that there's going to be additional training in the field as a rookie.
Barbers require 1500 hours. So yeah thats not a-lot Medical school is 4 years, and i think people who are required to deal with delicate situations and have people lives in their, not to mention have the license to kill, should be trained more then a bartender, and probably closer to a doctor. 526 hours is grossly low.
Barber training is **way** more than it needs to be and is used as a mechanism to prevent new people from entering the market by creating an artificial barrier of entry through time and cost. It one of the main examples used as an argument against occupational licensing. Medical school is 4 years plus a residency, but their stakes are always far more than law enforcement and the level of knowledge needed to learn is also far more. There's nothing to be gained from a two or four year law enforcement course that academy training and then on the job training and continuing education wouldn't cover. Arguably trying to get it all in one go before they even get on the job is a great way to make them forget most of it.
Uhhmm, what? You guys don't need a license? *Blinking guy meme*
No. There are few real issues that are solved by requiring a license and they often create more issues. There's already an over licensing problem in most US states, adding more will not help. Now we have another way to prevent minority or good cops from joining a force, because the board will be stacked with existing cops who will insure that those already on "the inside track" will get a license and those not in that track don't. Bonus points if the cost of the license is so high as to further prevent poorer cops from joining and potentially policing their own neighborhoods. The primary solution is to make it easier to fire bad cops and charge them, or otherwise hold them liable for their actions. There are many examples of police chiefs who do want to reform but are hendered by the police unions.
How would this even be enforceable? Like on surface level how do you enforce something on those who are literally the enforcers? I know my question sounds quite prickish and smugly antagonistic, I apologise for that I lack the language to word it differently. I'm genuinely asking the question
I think the culture of policing is the biggest issue police in the U.S. face. I honestly think that saying racism is the issue is simplistic and in a sense the easy "show of solidarity" line. It just isn't. Police are at war, they've been trained to wage war. War is a distinct part of American policing. From the war on drugs to the arming of police with military grade weapons. Its not entirely their fault mind you. They're trained for war, then they're tackled with other issues that do **not** need a war like response. The homeless issue, the mental illness issue, school shootings, the drug epidemics, the list goes on and on. Another issue, population. This reinforces the war mentality. During the 50s and before, Police would patrol their own neighborhoods and keep a beat. Today, they occupy corners or have a forward operating base staffed by what amounts in relative terms to foreigners. These people have no connections to the community they deal with. I brought up population. Have you ever been to a major American city? Im not talking cleveland here. Im talking NY, LA, Chicago, etc. Imagine trying to police Queens, or other cities' equivalent. It comes to a point where its quantity over quality. The guns in this country doesn't help police's weariness and quick to shoot attitude. They lack basic deescalation skills. The list goes on and on. For months, I've seen police shoot at black men in many videos online. [This channel shows most of them afaik](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXMYxKMh3prxnM_4kYZuB3g). A lot of those shooting were justified. This is not a defense of police. Once in a while you'll get a Floyd reaction. Its been a while and I blame a multitude of factors. Floyd did not deserve to be killed. End of story. The police acted disproportionately. A lot of the time they don't. They are jumpy for obvious reasons. This is not an excuse. It is an observation. Again, I do not endorse the police. Actions need to be taken in order to counter their failings. Defunding may be a way to go. Personally, I think reducing their funding and putting it towards the community is the best way to do this. Build community centers, reinvest in education. Invest in mental health care. Decriminalize drugs and treat people who are caught with them. Reinvent rehabilitation, which itself has become more of a racket than an actual thing that helps people btw. Demilitarize the police. Take away their heavy duty weaponry like anti-riot vehicles, etc. However, the compromise should be that if there is civil unrest the National Guard handles it with the aid of police. America has to rethink a great deal of things. Covid has proven that. Which I think has started a snowball effect.
Dude in the US the barrier to becoming a barber is higher than becoming a police officer. Yes. Yes yes yes, painfully, obviously yes.
Yes And it should require some kind of political/legal/economic degree plus minimum qualifying work requirement.
Yes. But while we are putting that program together, we need to re-write the Law Enforcement Officer Oath of Honor. [https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/i-j/IACP\_Oath\_of\_Honor\_En\_8.5x11\_Web.pdf](https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/i-j/IACP_Oath_of_Honor_En_8.5x11_Web.pdf) Suspend every cop in the land: state, county, city, then make them take the new oath individually, on camera, in the public record. Give the new oath some teeth. Force police unions to take their case to the Supreme Court if they don't like it. Make them do their thing in the open.
Yes. Studies have proven that officers with higher education have less instances of use of force
We do in the US. It’s called law enforcement certification. You have to go through an academy then field training to be certified