LOL - I know it can feel that way, but that's not really (1) the case and (2) exactly what I mean.

Let's focus on (2) since that gets to the meat of it. You're still talking about the POLICE. I am not.

Think HR. HR says "when X employee gets Y slips, you must do Z." Supervisors ignore Z when Z is not something anyone think it's a good idea to do.

EX: Despite what we keep focusing on, LMPD actually DID have a body cam policy in place. The footage was to ne used for three or four different QA and employee review policies. Some supes just didn't use them.

FF to Breonna Taylor. Now, LMPD is screwed b/c supes did not follow policy. Those supes should be fired.

There are more subjective versions as well. MinnPD, for example, has a policy that says "officers should take steps to de-esculate in X situation." I want to see how the supe is assessing for whether officers do that. If they aren't doing those at all, they should be fired.

Like that, on and on and on. Those are conduct things. SOME are subjective Regardless, all must be ASSESSED. Assessment must be documented. Someone should be able to pull all of supe Z's subordinate files and see evidence of a kill list of eval outcomes. If the file has NO eval notes, ...

That forces (1) the oversight process but more importantly, the (2) supe's choices are now forever linked to officer's. Supe says I found officer B compliant on D, E, and F and that's not true, supe goes down withh officer B. CYA and "I'm not going down with you" is a powerful motivator.