According to Killedbypolice.net, at least 808 people have been killed by police so far this year, outpacing last year’s deaths by 20 victims.... and they ALL GET AWAY WITH IT!
"Police in the United States are trained to see the working class and poor as a hostile
enemy. Anything less than complete submissiveness is grounds for officers to unleash
deadly force on their victims. In some instances, even the most casual encounters with
police have proven to be deadly."
"In the overwhelming majority of police killings, of which there are more than one thousand every year, no officer is ever charged. In the few cases where charges are brought, most are found not guilty. The Supreme Court has made it nearly impossible to convict a police officer for murder stating that an officer is permitted to use deadly force as long as he or she believes that either they or others are in danger."
COP MURDERS IN AMERICA -
THOUSANDS SHOT IN THE HEAD.
JUDGES GIVE THE THUG COPS A PASS TO
DO IT AGAIN!
A somewhat desperate suggestion to fix corruption in our law enforcement agencies
No matter the outcome of the investigations authorized by the new attorney general, William Barr, and the supposedly ongoing investigation by the DOJ inspector general, the basic facts cannot be denied. Law enforcement at the highest levels in this country has proven to be corrupt. The faith that the American people once placed in the federal justice system has been lost and may never be regained. The consequence of this universal distrust is permanent damage to the underlying belief and faith in the entire system and our country.
The Department of Justice, the FBI, the CIA, and other domestic intelligence agencies have once again been shown as political weapons to be used against political enemies. This is not new. J. Edgar Hoover used the FBI as his personal investigative tool to keep various members of Congress in check and prosecute various enemies of his and the presidents he served during his reign of terror. Robert (Bobby) Kennedy was John F. Kennedy (the president)'s brother. Could there have been any undue family influence on how Robert Kennedy carried out his duties? Strangely, no one at the time in the press seemed to have had a problem with this relationship. The attorney general and the DOJ are primarily political tools of the president, who appoints the attorney general. Why would the president appoint an enemy? But suddenly this has become page one since it involves Trump and his appointees.
Congressional oversight of the activities of the DOJ and its subsidiaries is 100% political. Facts, truth, and the law have nothing to do with how members of Congress, especially Democrats, carry out their supposed "oversight" functions. The uproar regarding the Mueller investigation would never have occurred if Hilary Clinton had been elected president. No investigation of anything would have been initiated. The attorney general would have been a friend and supporter of Clinton, just as Holder and Lynch were friends and supporters of Obama. Why is Trump different? Because the Democrats hate him for "stealing" their rightful power and control.
True oversight of the Department of Justice can be accomplished only by a separate and distinct investigative unit not under the direct political control of the Congress.
Much of the Judicial Branch of the government is highly politicized. One need only look at the Ninth Circuit in California or the naked overreach of district judges issuing rulings against this president that have national implications and effect.
Given the political history of the judicial system, I still suggest that the oversight function of the DOJ and its subsidiaries be vested in the Supreme Court as the least of all evils. I recognize the dangers inherent in giving nine unelected judges such power. But history has shown that the present procedures are seriously flawed. Trusting elected political animals, whose existence depends on the whims of the mobs to which they cater, to behave in a rational, logical, and lawful manner is like asking elephants to walk a tightrope.
A separate Supreme Court–monitoring unit whose function would be akin to the existing inspector general's office of the various agencies with an independent I.G. in each organization reporting to the Court might make more sense. Another option would be a monitoring unit funded and populated by the states.
Both of these suggestions would be akin to the Civilian Review Boards that exist in many cities to monitor the actions of local police departments. Members of such commissions or boards could be drawn from the wide spectrum of civic-minded civilian occupations, not just judges or law enforcement people. The tasks would be so great as to negate the possibility of volunteer members. This would call for full-time dedicated, honest citizens. Where are Diogenes and his lamp when so desperately needed?
Certainly, a lot of thought and honest evaluation would have to be given to the exact development, function, makeup, and legality of any such board, but I submit that something must be done to rectify the dangerous situation that now exists. Neither Congress nor the president will ever agree to this type of monitoring, which would mean giving up some of their political grandstanding activities in front of the TV cameras. But what is to stop the Court from instituting a parallel monitoring ability on its own? Inadequate or no funding from Congress? Where there is a will, there is a way.
Is this another item of change to be considered by the so-called Convention of States?
Can any republic such as the United States continue to exist when its philosophy of equal justice for all is built on a foundation of shifting political sands? From fixing speeding tickets to manufacturing evidence to spying on citizens, the trust the people have had in law enforcement at all levels has always been looked upon by the populace with a wink and a nod. We cannot continue down the path to an equivalent KGB or Gestapo type of justice system.
The existence of corrupt law enforcement agencies and individuals is certainly not unique in history. One needs only to remember the famous quote of the Roman poet Juvenal: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who guards from the guards themselves?")