The problems you describe would only be made worse by moving funding to a centralized, far away and detached federal entity. Accountability - gone. Locality - gone. Trust - gone.

We already have a centralized federalized police force - the FBI. Look what political shenanigan's they have become embroiled in lately. Who's interest are they serving currently? Who are they accountable to? What can be done about systemic issues in this system? Nothing and no-one...

> Maybe I'm a black person in the south who believes my local government is controlled by racists

This is vastly overplayed in modern times, despite what sensationalists would have you believe, but in this alternate reality nothing forbids the federal government from being filled with and controlled by racists either...

Regardless, the solution is very clearly to change the local government, not side-step it for a government that's hundreds or thousands of miles away and unaware of local issues that might be important to residents. Oh how history repeats itself... the US wouldn't be a country today if we hadn't already learned this painful lesson.

More federal government is rarely if ever the solution folks. Your local government already has the power and ability to do all the things it's citizens desire.

I guess I just disagree with your characterization of pretty much everything you said.

The FBI - obviously not perfect, but the political shenanigans seem overblown to me. The mar-a-lago thing was 1. probably justified although I'll reserve judgment until the confiscated files are revealed, and 2. ordered by the attorney general, not the FBI. Based on the news I have read the FBI is far, far, far more accountable than my local police department which is utterly unaccountable because any politician who crosses their union is instantly replaced.

> the solution is very clearly to change the local government

Much easier said than done. Pretty much everyone in my city has nothing but negative experience with the police, but nothing can be done because every politician is scared shitless of them. We elect "police reformer" after "police reformer" and they quickly change their tune once they realize doing anything cops dislike effectively instantly means laws are no longer enforced. We're being held hostage, and there is no local solution.

It seems much more likely the perspective being portrayed here is not the reality to the elected officials. Perhaps there is more to the story than what joe-random citizen sees or understands. I highly doubt elected officials are actually "scared" of the police, despite whatever campaign contributions the local union chapter can muster. There are a lot of political forces at play, including the desire for re-election.

Mar-a-lago is just the latest of a string of political shenanigans the FBI has been involved in. But we can also look at other federal law enforcement agencies for clear examples of why we do not want this. ATF, Secret Service, CBP, ICE and more have all become embroiled in political turmoil in the last decade.

Regardless, the problems you voice here are not solved by a federal police force nor federal funding. The federal government is not immune to corruption and bad actors - and are far far more difficult to hold accountable for bad decisions and actions. The federal government doesn't understand nor care about the problems of some po-dunk random town.

You need local folks that live in your town to be the local law enforcement. It's that simple. It should be noted currently a lot of your town or city police don't actually live where they work, and therefore might be inclined to care less about the local community. Moving the agency and incentives further away only will exacerbate this situation.

You want more accountability? Then have your neighbor be the enforcer, not some hired gun from out of town.

My police department literally operated torture facilities for over a decade. People were being tortured by their own police department. They paid $67 million settlement money last year alone, and that's been about the average over the last decade. Yes, to an extent all government is bad, but saying that police departments that for all intents and purposes are self-regulating are more accountable than federal agencies just seems bonkers to me. Local regulation may be able to hold individuals accountable, but can never create systematic change because the inertia is just far too strong to overcome.

The only thing that has ever created some amount of change is a federal consent decree that the department is now forced to follow (although they have been to court fighting it many times)

How would any of this change at the federal level?

The federal government doesn't solve local problems. They can barely solve national problems these days...

People want to look towards some higher power for solutions. No such thing exists here. The solution is already in front of you.

If your local politicians don't change anything, then it really means the constituency doesn't actually want it to change. Just because you and your circle disagree doesn't mean everyone does. Politicians like to remain in office... and it's not police unions that submit ballots...

Lastly, your perspective might be very different if you happen to live in a major city. However, this policy would not be isolated to major cities... it would also impact small towns all across America - we need to remember NY, SF, LA, SEA are not the only places folks live. For majority of this nation that does not live in this mega-cities, losing locality would be a huge step backwards.

I don’t think we disagree on much. You’re probably right that my perspective is completely skewed by living in a major city. I will say though that reason local politicians don’t change anything, beyond losing pro police votes, is that the police literally engage in work stoppage as soon as anyone starts talking about reform, and then hands are tied.

I think most folks actually agree on more than they would assume - today's media thrives by making it appear we're much more divided than reality.

> is that the police literally engage in work stoppage as soon as anyone starts talking about reform

I think this might be related to the recent "defund the police" movements and other similarly misguided attempts at reform. Making it more difficult or dangerous to do the work will absolutely result in stoppages, or at least the appearance of stoppages.

What gets left out of these conversations is the police's opinion. Why not engage with police and find solutions for making our communities better and safer? I think many would be surprised to find out the police actually do care majority of the time. Some folks spend an entire career in law enforcement, and some even obtain advanced degrees (masters and higher) on enforcement policies and actions - yet we do not involve them in these conversations at all, almost as-if us simpletons know best how to do their job (hint, we don't). Our ideas and their ideas should be discussed and consensus reached.

> What gets left out of these conversations is the police's opinion.

The problem with this is the union has elected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Catanzara to be their president. His history includes countless complaints, domestic abuse, and a relationship he started with a student at the school he was supposed to be protecting. Timeline of wrongdoing https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/comments/hio06z/chicago_fra.... It's just hard for people to take police demands seriously when they choose to elect someone that basically everyone in the city believes is evil. I find it hard to believe politicians aren't attempting to find common ground on changes that can be made, but every time the mayor releases a list of reforms they'd like to see the only response is "fuck off or we stop arresting people" and then they follow through if push comes to shove.

I think that is my point though. The mayor just putting out a list of reforms they want doesn't actually mean they are good reforms. Particularly when the proposition follows a public incident.

The mayor is a politician that often seeks cheap PR (like many or most politicians) and will say things that are absurd but sound good. A lot of things sound good until you iron out the details, as the "defund the police" movement found out.

I do not know the specifics of what you talk about regarding proposed reforms, but I would be shocked if the mayor of Chicago sat down with police captains and chiefs and worked together to propose and implement solid reforms. If they had, they would by definition have police backing for the reforms. The opposite is what almost certainly happened...

Think about it - what if your local mayor starting yammering on about how your industry does their job wrong and here's how it's going to get fixed - all without including anyone from your industry for input. I think the reaction would be quite similar...

I promise you the folks working at your police department do not wake up in the morning eager to harm their community.

Afaik, police opinion being treated as most important thing is how things got where they are. They are unaccountable, effectively speaking.

Who polices the police?