Feds Announce Takeover of Police in 6 Cities

a reply to: MrSpad

or are you just naive?

WIth all that federal help, and talk about trust .....theres conspicuously something in there I DONT see to help with that......

Point out to me in there where it mentions anything about putting on body cameras........


.......yeah didnt think so......

Its a sham.........

originally posted by: Elton
Here is the source article: AL.com, it seems a little less biased.

The other pilot cities are: Ft. Worth, Gary, Indiana, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh and Stockton. The initiative comes after several high profile fatal police-involved shootings.

"We are truly honored that DOJ would select Birmingham as one of six national pilot sites,'' said Birmingham police Chief A.C. Roper. "The mayor and I actually started discussing this initiative several months ago and knew there would be over 100 cities vying for the limited opportunities."

"We're all aware of the modern day issues and national discussion on policing in America. Although we've worked extremely hard building bridges in our communities we saw this initiative as an opportunity to strengthen relationships, increase public cooperation, and improve the perception of police legitimacy across our city,'' Roper said. "We truly recognize that the Birmingham Police Department cannot be successful without community support and community trust. This three year project will allow us to serve as a national police model and increase our capacity to serve our citizens."

Sounds like the city volunteered to be in the program and that they welcome the opportunity to increase public trust.

I guess it sounds alright to me, I'm willing to wait and see how this works out before calling it a takeover by Feds.

Yeah it seems like this isn't a bad thing at all. Roughly 100 cities applied to be a part of the program & only a few were selected. The OP makes it sound like the Federal Govt is declaring martial law in those 6 cities. While I agree w/the OP that money should be spent more on ending police brutality & corruption, I actually think this program may help do that. Or at least allow regulators to keep a closer eye on those cities' police departments to help dissuade them from brutality & corruption in the 1st place.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: MrSpad

or are you just naive?

WIth all that federal help, and talk about trust .....theres conspicuously something in there I DONT see to help with that......

Point out to me in there where it mentions anything about putting on body cameras........


.......yeah didnt think so......

Its a sham.........

It is a tiny grant in a tiny program what do you expect? And Cities not had to apply to get chosen. The towns at least will be able to get solid data on what they doing. You want more than that you need more money.

a reply to: FamCore

This program sounds like a PR stunt to on the one hand make the federal government look like they are doing something which is of course the main job of all government. On the other hand this administration seems very focused on increasing racial division while looking like they are working to fight racial injustice. Just my 2 cents.

One would think New Orleans would/should be on that list.

a reply to: Bedlam

My comment was paraphrased from my Manager at a very large corporation. She always stated " If you are not careful upper management will send you "help". You do not want their "help"". Very wise Manager

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
Requiring data from police-departments will go a long way in recognizing issues in the criminal justice system.

I disagree, there is already a wealth of evidence to show that numerous police departments are corrupt to the core, and expecting them to basically investigate and report on themselves is a complete nonsense.

What needs to happen is that local citizens are given the option to monitor the actions of their own police departments, while those same communities are encouraged to work within the police department themselves.

You cannot have a functioning police department that's incapable of answering to their own public, or one that is clearly not working alongside their own community. The public needs to have open avenues of communication with their local government and their own police, with accountability to that public, that's the only way things will ever change.

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: MrSpad

or are you just naive?

WIth all that federal help, and talk about trust .....theres conspicuously something in there I DONT see to help with that......

Point out to me in there where it mentions anything about putting on body cameras........


.......yeah didnt think so......

Its a sham.........

It is a tiny grant in a tiny program what do you expect? And Cities not had to apply to get chosen. The towns at least will be able to get solid data on what they doing. You want more than that you need more money.

brother these same cities have all brand new dodge chargers and 50k suvs as their patrol vechicles im not kidding, and im not talking about a few, im talking about their entire fleet.....

you cant tell me they dont have the money to do the cameras....

This whole thing is part of the initiative started in Feb. 2014 called "My Brother's Keeper", a public-private partnership....public-PRIVATE. (I translate that into politicians and their cronies.)

In order to justify funneling large sums of federal grant money into these areas and intermediaries, you need to create an urgency. Obama and his insiders have used two things to do this:

Race and immigration

That is why, imo, the racial tension and divide has been ratcheted up in this administration beginning with the Cambridge incident and continuing all the way up to Ferguson. A false sense of urgency has been foisted onto the American taxpayer.

Even though in all the incidents that were USED to stir up the masses, the officers were exonerated, it didn't stop this administration, with the help of the MSM and other players, from creating the climate they wanted to create. Now, cities and their police departments need to be "fixed". Certain neighborhoods and communities need additional programs and tax dollars. (Nevermind that hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into these areas to very little avail over the decades. They are still cesspools of crime and poverty. But, hey! Someone got all that grant money, uh.)

The second thing needed was a mass influx of illegal immigrants, thousands and thousands of them. They are going to need money funneled into programs as well. Legal, social services, education, mentoring, mental health, housing, etc. More tax funded grants issued to so-called non-profits. Remember, non-profits are allowed to pay salaries and administrative costs before one penny is spent on the program.

I get tired of it all. It seems like these problematic areas just get worse with each passing decade while big foundations rake in government and private money, the founders get wealthy, and the communities remain problematic, and we, the taxpayers, keep paying more and more.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: FamCore

Seems like this is less about the militarization of police and more about combating the very mistrust and police brutality you reference in your OP.

You want less police brutality, this seems likes a good start. A grassroots style campaign of joint cooperation between the fed and local police aimed at regaining lost trust.

What would you have preferred, if I may ask?

Aren't you being naive? If you have distrust then cops, who can only arrest people put those people that distrust in jail. Voila! No more 'distrust'.

Think I'm kidding? The rest get to see their neighbors have their 'thoughts corrected' and marvel at the big shiny tanks and black helicopters which are just doing Traffic news reports. (Ignore the burning cars along the side of the road...it's, mice. Yeah).

a reply to: Shamrock6

yes..maybe we should just lay down now..get it over with.

BTW, that initiative I mentioned above, My Brother's Keeper? It was started Feb. 2014...just one month after the BarackObama Foundation was set up. Just sayin'.

a reply to: queenofswords

"public-private partnership" (facepalm)

the titles they use for isome of their activities/initiatives are absolutely absurd.

Thanks for bringing this information to the thread - i'm doing to dig a littler deeper into "My Brother's Keeper".

originally posted by: queenofswords
This whole thing is part of the initiative started in Feb. 2014 called "My Brother's Keeper", a public-private partnership....public-PRIVATE. (I translate that into politicians and their cronies.)

In order to justify funneling large sums of federal grant money into these areas and intermediaries, you need to create an urgency. Obama and his insiders have used two things to do this:

Race and immigration

That is why, imo, the racial tension and divide has been ratcheted up in this administration beginning with the Cambridge incident and continuing all the way up to Ferguson. A false sense of urgency has been foisted onto the American taxpayer.

Even though in all the incidents that were USED to stir up the masses, the officers were exonerated, it didn't stop this administration, with the help of the MSM and other players, from creating the climate they wanted to create. Now, cities and their police departments need to be "fixed". Certain neighborhoods and communities need additional programs and tax dollars. (Nevermind that hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into these areas to very little avail over the decades. They are still cesspools of crime and poverty. But, hey! Someone got all that grant money, uh.)

The second thing needed was a mass influx of illegal immigrants, thousands and thousands of them. They are going to need money funneled into programs as well. Legal, social services, education, mentoring, mental health, housing, etc. More tax funded grants issued to so-called non-profits. Remember, non-profits are allowed to pay salaries and administrative costs before one penny is spent on the program.

I get tired of it all. It seems like these problematic areas just get worse with each passing decade while big foundations rake in government and private money, the founders get wealthy, and the communities remain problematic, and we, the taxpayers, keep paying more and more.

I am replying to my own post because I am watching this whole thing.

It has already begun.

You know the QuikTrip store in Ferguson? The first structural casualty of the Ferguson riots? Here comes the grant money, the paybacks, the INITIATIVES.

Today, with the help of QuikTrip’s corporate parent, the first structural casualty of the protests will be reconstructed into a jobs training center and given to the Urban League of Metropolitan St. Louis to manage. QuikTrip will demolish the structure and donate the land and some funds to the league, company spokesman Mike Thornburgh said.

It all sounds so warm and fuzzy...."giving back to the community"----"investing in our young men"----"rebuilding the community"---"addressing the cultural breakdown"---"economic rebirth".......ad nauseam.

Corporate sponsors are even getting in on the action. "Save Our Sons" Initiative sounds so uplifting and encouraging, doesn't it? Here we go!

I'm betting another decade from now, nothing will have changed. We have seen it more times than we want to admit. Sponsors get write-offs, non-profits get grant money, a few people actually get help, and taxpayers keep funneling money into these problematic areas to pad the pockets of foundations and others in on it.

Ferguson eyes economic rebirth

So, when the federal government takes over these police services, will the tactics of the federal government be applied to the citizenry?

Black Sites
Indefinite Detainment
Guilty until proven innocent
Closed "trials"
No jury trials...

This is a pathetic attempt at a MAJOR power grab by the federal government.

If there was ever a reason for the people in those cities to rebel, this would be it. But they won't. They'll take it, and say thank you. Then, after their son or daughter and/or wife or husband is busted by a federal agent for smoking dope, they'll never be seen again.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

Same with Birmingham, which is 73% Black. The mayor is black, the police chief is black, most of LE is, and you don't hear a peep anymore about racism. In fact, I can't remember a time when leadership of Birmingham wasn't Black, or there was an incident alleging racism. (which is the elephant in the room on this topic, like it or not, say what you will.)

There are, however, frequent allegations, one way or another, about misappropriation of funds , kickbacks and such. Those positions change people everytime the wind blows, or so it seems. (I might be wrong, but I'm thinking the last mayor is still in prison.)

This is quite possibly a genuine approach to teaching, learning, and improving. Some people really would like to do better jobs, and seek guidance where they can get it. From what I read of the police chief, he sounds delighted to have this opportunity.

But hey! Don't go with what you've read! Just make it up as you go! I guess it's how people roll these days!

I also did not get the impression this program is being "forced" on any city.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I would think that the easiest way to obtain power, is to get it voluntarily. Once the federal government gets power, it is never given up.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Unfortunately, with some people, if it puts a $$ in their pocket, they are more than happy to relinquish it.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I would think that the easiest way to obtain power, is to get it voluntarily. Once the federal government gets power, it is never given up.

Not true. The government seized state Mental Institutions at one point, plugging in "monitors" and designating "receiverships". (this was not on a voluntary basis, it was ordered by a federal judge). The feds came, they worked their butts off, amended policies; they repaired, they left. Those were much needed actions, as things under state authority had become over powering.

You know the criteria now for have a person 'committed'? (Harmful to self or others, overt acts, etc.?) Those were all devised during the period of receivership, because states were committing patients, whose illnesses could have been treated outside a mental institution.