Many reasons. Maybe I'm a black person in the south who believes my local government is controlled by racists. Maybe I believe the incentives for the prosecutors who are supposed to police the police are completely out of whack because prosecutors rely on police work to do their job. Maybe I just think the police are completely unaccountable and am ready to see a new political strategy regarding policing to be tried.
Either way, federal funding doesn't eliminate local funding, it would just be in addition to if the police agree to some rules.
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.
Who defeated the first iteration of the KKK? It wasn't local sheriffs, it was the feds.
Who brought charges against Ahmaud Arbery's killers? The local PD cleared those lynchers. It needed the Georgia state authorities' involvement.
Local police authorities can be of highly variable quality, and they don't have as much oversight as the higher levels of law enforcement. I'm not inclined to trust in them more just because they're "local". Their closeness often leads to massive conflicts of interest. Trust has to be earned.
Either way, federal funding doesn't eliminate local funding, it would just be in addition to if the police agree to some rules.