Will the State takeover IMPD?

[KMaC]

I doubt this bill will go anywhere. It seems to be a publicity stunt about the Mayor's lack of ability.
This should send the City/County/BLM Council into fits of rage. Maybe we'll get "mostly peaceful burning of the city" round II.

Senate Republicans introduce bill to give control of IMPD to state police commission

INDIANAPOLIS — Jack Sandlin and Scott Baldwin represent Indianapolis and Noblesville respectively in the Indiana State Senate. Before they were senators, Sandlin and Baldwin were police offic…

fox59.com

 

[cobber]

I doubt this bill will go anywhere. It seems to be a publicity stunt about the Mayor's lack of ability.
This should send the City/County/BLM Council into fits of rage. Maybe we'll get "mostly peaceful burning of the city" round II.

Senate Republicans introduce bill to give control of IMPD to state police commission

INDIANAPOLIS — Jack Sandlin and Scott Baldwin represent Indianapolis and Noblesville respectively in the Indiana State Senate. Before they were senators, Sandlin and Baldwin were police offic…

fox59.com

Next they'll be proposing federalization of city and State police forces.

Bad idea, no matter who the mayor is, because you could end up with a Cuomo for governor (or a Holcomb)...

 

[bwframe]

I dunno about IMPD? Would have to hear what our INGO professionals on that job would have to say about that?

I bet IMPD, Indy residents and everyone throughout the state would vote for the state to take over the Marion Co prosecutor's office though?

 

[John Arthurs]

I can't wait for the wife to retire so we can get out of Marion Co

 

[INgunowner]

Wait! So you're telling me?!?

Political posturing, finger pointing, and bickering...
PLUS, an effort to further consolidate authoritarian power by transfering control of our domestic military directly to the bureaucrats???

 

[KellyinAvon]

I'll give benefit of the doubt to Senator Sandlin. There are a lot of "boards" involved here, from what I just saw (not the link, on the TV) this establishes another. Haven't read SB 168, yet.

 

[T.Lex]

Looks like someone hates ISP and wants to punish them.

 

[eric001]

"In the interim, our Indianapolis officers and their families remain focused on the broken system of ‘revolving door’ criminal justice, the surging violence and record breaking homicide levels along with the ever-increasing threats faced by our law enforcement professionals within our State’s Capital City.”

I think what the FOP rep said right there is the REAL problem. Police can only catch the hoodrats--it's the {expletive deleted} broken court system that hamstrings them. I could only wish that legislators would focus on the problem, and not the symptom here. Maybe something as simple as mandatory sentences for multiple violent offenses would take some pressure off??

Seems to me there was a sheriff (Arpaio) out west who ran a tent city prison with volunteer-only chain gangs that made a real difference in his city's crime rate. Pity the bleeding hearts that seem to control the big cities wouldn't be able to stomach such a system in the here and now, especially around these parts.

 

[phylodog]

You are correct Eric.

Who could have guessed that eliminating almost every ounce of unpleasantness in prison would lead to people really not caring if they get sent there?

 

[Doug]

From what I heard on the news, IMPD DOES have a plan to deal with the rising murder rate in Indianapolis. They are going to take reports over the phone rather than investigate "minor" crimes like vandalism, burglary, assault, robbery, etc. to allow more officers to concentrate on murder. Kind of like the reverse of the "broken window" initiative.
This effort will cause the aforementioned crimes to increase. The murder rate will not go down because the witnesses will not be any more forthcoming than they are now.
Thus, we get the worst of both worlds: no reduction in murder and an increase in other crimes.
What else would you expect from a Democrat administration? They will do all they can to turn us into Chicago or New York.

 

[phylodog]

 

[rebase]

Not a fan of giving state control of a local police force. At all.

I recently spoke with a state senator recently on this issue. His proposal was interesting from a legal perspective: Move to a licensing-based approach for police officers similar to how doctors, lawyers, & financial professions all must hold & maintain professional licenses in order to practice in their field.

Curious on yalls thoughts?

 

[Route 45]

Not a fan of giving state control of a local police force. At all.

I recently spoke with a state senator recently on this issue. His proposal was interesting from a legal perspective: Move to a licensing-based approach for police officers similar to how doctors, lawyers, & financial professions all must hold & maintain professional licenses in order to practice in their field.

Curious on yalls thoughts?

It would be unnecessary duplication. Police officers are already certified after completing the state required law enforcement academy. What would licensing accomplish that is not already in place through state certification and merit board oversight? I mean, other than subjecting law enforcement agencies to the political whims of yet another group.

 

[rebase]

It would be unnecessary duplication. Police officers are already certified after completing the state required law enforcement academy. What would licensing accomplish that is not already in place through state certification and merit board oversight? I mean, other than subjecting law enforcement agencies to the political whims of yet another group.

I havent actually seen any bill yet so please take this with a grain of salt.

My understanding is that it would get eliminate state certification and merit board. With a license-based approach additional continuing education and training would be possible as it could be a requirement to renewal. And it would standardize training across academies (which today all teach different curriculum)

All aforementioned professions require yearly continuing education.

To my knowledge police officers get 24 hours per year, including mandated 2 hours in firearms, 2 hours in physical tactics/use of force and 2 hours in police vehicle operation. But no state mandates on de-escalation training or first aid or other types of training. The general feel (to me) seems to be once officers graduate the academy, continued training is really at the whim of the department budget + elected officials. Which isn't to say a licensing board wouldn't be subject to the same constraints. From a legal perspective its an interesting approach to assure all officers are able (forced) to receive continued training and education.

Please correct me if any or all of this is incorrect. I thought licensing was an interesting approach from the outside looking in, but others probably know better than I do

 

[Tryin']

I havent actually seen any bill yet so please take this with a grain of salt.

My understanding is that it would get eliminate state certification and merit board. With a license-based approach additional continuing education and training would be possible as it could be a requirement to renewal. And it would standardize training across academies (which today all teach different curriculum)

All aforementioned professions require yearly continuing education.

To my knowledge police officers get 24 hours per year, including mandated 2 hours in firearms, 2 hours in physical tactics/use of force and 2 hours in police vehicle operation. But no state mandates on de-escalation training or first aid or other types of training. The general feel (to me) seems to be once officers graduate the academy, continued training is really at the whim of the department budget + elected officials. Which isn't to say a licensing board wouldn't be subject to the same constraints. From a legal perspective its an interesting approach to assure all officers are able (forced) to receive continued training and education.

Please correct me if any or all of this is incorrect. I thought licensing was an interesting approach from the outside looking in, but others probably know better than I do

You are taking the lowest common denominator approach. Its not that way across the board. For example, I have 8 hours of in-person cultural awareness training coming up. It is a rare year (if ever) that I have had less than 120 "in service" training hours. That does not include all the administrative training not related to anything job specific, nor does it include personally sponsored training. Heck, that doesn't even include specialty training for special assignments or instructor certifications. There are several accreditation entities that have their own set of "above and beyond" requirements to retain their stamp of approval. CALEA is probably the most common.

Professionals are gonna be professional.

I REALLY don't want to see the state have much more say in my training, especially since it will undoubtedly be heavily influenced by well-meaning imbeciles who have no idea what police work entails or how police learn and develop professionally.

And a FEDERAL mandate? *shudder*

 

[Route 45]

Licensing simply does not make sense for police officers. Law enforcement is not a trade or profession in the same way that it is for doctors, attorneys, plumbers, pharmacy techs, etc. Police officers are solely government employee public servants. There is already a system in place for professional standards, and any concerns about standardization of curriculum throughout the state can be addressed by legislation.

 

[John224]

Just what's needed, more government regulations.