OT: More democrat power-grabbing
Papi_Chulo
Miami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
"It appears you are making yourselves the judge, jury, and executioner for the office of the sheriff, nullifying the will of the voters.”
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has taken action to give itself the power to remove Sheriff Alex Villanueva from office.
The board voted 4-1 to approve a motion on Tuesday that calls for the acting county counsel to draft a proposed ballot measure for this November that would give the board the ability to remove the sheriff from office. The draft would need approval before qualifying for ballot placement in the fall. The measure was brought by board Chair Holly Mitchell and Supervisor Hilda Solis, per Los Angeles Magazine.
“We can’t just sit back and watch the destruction of a wayward sheriff,” Solis, who co-wrote the motion, said, per the Washington Examiner. “If the sheriff is not able to follow the law … and engages in misconduct, the board needs stronger mechanisms to check this harmful behavior.”
While Villanueva is a moderate Democrat, he has challenged the Board over its position on “defund the police,” its part in allowing the homelessness population to skyrocket, as well as its approval of social welfare initiatives for criminals instead of prison, per the Examiner.
The Daily Wire reached out for comment and was directed to Sheriff Villanueva’s public response to the Board of Supervisors, in which he called the action an “unprecedented motion” that “would allow corrupt Board members to intimidate sheriffs from carrying out their official duties to investigate crime.”
He pointed out that the measure was built upon an earlier motion first started by former Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who is facing a trial this fall and has “been indicted on 20 counts of public corruption for alleged criminal acts committed while serving as the chair” of the Board.
Villanueva claimed that the proposal would likely be found to be unconstitutional in court. “The fact the authors of this motion never sought an opinion from County Counsel or constitutional law expert, regarding its constitutionality, speaks volumes as to the intent,” he added.
The statement pointed out that there are four methods of removing a Sheriff from office including elections, recall elections, creating a civil grand jury, or “using the authority already vested in the state attorney general,” noting that the Board “conveniently” forgot to state the fourth option. He added that the measure “is a recipe for public corruption, particularly when ‘cause’ remains so broad and undefined.”
Villanueva did not hold back on calling out the Board of Supervisors in their attempt to gain power to dismiss him, stating “[t]his Board is attempting to cheat the system and create a ‘fast track’ pathway to remove a duly elected sheriff, one which circumvents the law and the foundational principles of due process enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
“You are not, ‘putting it in the hands of the voters.’ You are putting it in the hands of political activists who wrote the basis for this motion and the same political activists whose mission is to abolish law enforcement and redirect the public safety budget to their own 501(c)3 non-governmental organizations,” he added, in an apparent reference to “defund the police” initiatives.
Villanueva also pointed out that the board has already publicly stated it supports his opponent, leading Villanueva to noted that “it is highly unethical for you to put this motion forward” in light of that fact.
The Republican National Committee came out with a statement last week, saying the measure is “another prime example of how Democrats like to change the rules when they don’t get their way.”
“Not only is Sheriff Villanueva an elected official, he’s one of the few who has been willing to stand up to the board for reducing law enforcement funding and effectively endangering the lives of Angelenos,” per the RNC, according to Fox News and LA Mag. “… This decision from the L.A. County Board of Supervisors would attempt to bully the elected sheriff into doing what they want and would be yet another blow to a free and fair democracy, thanks to California Democrats.”
https://www.dailywire.com/news/l-a-count…
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
23 comments
Latest
The first formal slave patrol was created in the Carolina colonies in 1704.
Slave patrols had three primary functions:
1) to chase down, apprehend, and return to their owners, runaway slaves;
2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts; and,
3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to summary justice, outside of the law, if they violated any plantation rules.
Following the Civil War, these vigilante-style organizations evolved in modern “Police Departments” primarily as a means of controlling freed slaves who were now laborers working in an agricultural caste system, and enforcing “Jim Crow” segregation laws, designed to deny freed slaves equal rights and access to the political system.
Police Departments today continue centuries of violence and racist behavior to terrorize the working poor or any color, and only protect and serve the wealthy individuals in this country.
Since the left is shit scared of guns, they're the first ones calling for the police when trouble comes a knocking.
Also Villanueva is supported by progressives. His main thing has been returning to community policing.
Nice try at feigned outrage.
The ruth is commonality with reality, beliefs may or may not correspond with reality.
When a belief does correspond with reality, it is true.
When a belief describe reality other than it is, that belief is false.
You believing a version of reality is different from that version being true.
The truth is in fact true, regardless of your or anyone believes.
The first modern police department was that of Boston, in 1838, followed soon thereafter by New York and Philadelphia. None of those were in a slave state, or descended from the slave patrols of the south in that day.
You also miss the point that in most of these urban jurisdictions, the police force is predominantly minority itself.
Debunked again. Thank you for playing.
the Southern states the development of American policing followed a different path. The genesis of the modern police organization in the South is the “Slave Patrol” (Platt 1982). The first formal slave patrol was created in the Carolina colonies in 1704 (Reichel 1992). Slave patrols had three primary functions: (1) to chase down, apprehend, and return to their owners, runaway slaves; (2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts; and, (3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to summary justice, outside of the law, if they violated any plantation rules. Following the Civil War, these vigilante-style organizations evolved in modern Southern police departments primarily as a means of controlling freed slaves who were now laborers working in an agricultural caste system, and enforcing “Jim Crow” segregation laws, designed to deny freed slaves equal rights and access to the political system.
Read Part 5
Read Part 6
Sources
Gaines, Larry. Victor Kappeler, and Joseph Vaughn, Policing in America (3rd ed.), Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Company, 1999.
Harring, Sidney, Policing in a Class Society: The Experience of American Cities, 1865-1915, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1983.
Lundman, Robert J., Police and Policing: an Introduction, New York, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1980.
Lynch, Michael, Class Based Justice: A History of the Origins of Policing in Albany, Albany, New York: Michael J. Hindelang Criminal Research Justice Center, 1984.
Platt, Tony, “Crime and Punishment in the United States: Immediate and Long-Term Reforms from a Marxist Perspective, Crime and Social Justice 18 (1982).
Reichel, Philip L., “The Misplaced Emphasis on Urbanization in Police Development,” Policing and Society 3 no. 1 (1992).
Spitzer, Stephen, “The Rationalization of Crime Control in Capitalist Society,” Contemporary Crises 3, no. 1 (1979).
Spitzer, Stephen and Andrew Scull, “Privatization and Capitalist Development: The Case of the Private Police,” Social Problems 25, no. 1 (1977).
Walker, Samuel, The Police in America: An Introduction, New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.
Do better.
The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the “Watch,” or private-for-profit policing, which is called “The Big Stick” (Spitzer, 1979).
The watch system was composed of community volunteers whose primary duty was to warn of impending danger. Boston created a night watch in 1636, New York in 1658 and Philadelphia in 1700. The night watch was not a particularly effective crime control device. Watchmen often slept or drank on duty. While the watch was theoretically voluntary, many “volunteers” were simply attempting to evade military service, were conscript forced into service by their town, or were performing watch duties as a form of punishment. Philadelphia created the first day watch in 1833 and New York instituted a day watch in 1844 as a supplement to its new municipal police force (Gaines, Kappeler, and Vaughn 1999).
Augmenting the watch system was a system of constables, official law enforcement officers, usually paid by the fee system for warrants they served. Constables had a variety of non-law enforcement functions to perform as well, including serving as land surveyors and verifying the accuracy of weights and measures. In many cities constables were given the responsibility of supervising the activities of the night watch.
These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place.
These “modern police” organizations shared similar characteristics: (1) they were publicly supported and bureaucratic in form; (2) police officers were full-time employees, not community volunteers or case-by-case fee retainers; (3) departments had permanent and fixed rules and procedures, and employment as a police officers was continuous; (4) police departments were accountable to a central governmental authority (Lundman 1980).
Dishonest Fucking Retard it doesn't pre-date the watch system in New England, let alone what came over from England and Rome.
The South got wrecked in the Civil War, and the slave patrol system along with it.
Modern police system like in Boston, New York, Philly, Cincinnati, everywhere else mentioned in the article that you dishonestly redacted got installed in the South. Where they're staffed by minorities.
Quit your bullshit.
SJG
School of Rock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7o3PCR7…
SJG
We were doing a pretty good job of it after the economic reforms of the New Deal but since the Reagan revolution, there has been a growing wealth gap that has allowed for the creation of super wealthy people while impoverishing the middle class.
This fuels the social ills of crushing poverty, racial strife and competition, and rampant crime. Countries that have figured this out, taxing the wealthiest at a greater rate than lower income classes and distributing wealth through social safety nets, do not have the crime rate, murder rate, or racial violence that we have.
Inequality, predictably, creates anger and if you save up enough anger, you get anarchy. This is not complicated. We have seen it before and now we are seeing it again.
For Tetradon
Fuck you and Icee both.