10 ms·

The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

38 points by SamWhited 6y ago

downerending 6y ago
The need for policing is not going to disappear. If we don't have trained professionals, we'll have untrained amateurs. Doubt that will be an improvement.
- ladberg 6y ago
  "Defund the police" doesn't mean taking away all police. It just means reducing funding and reducing responsibilities of the police to avoid them becoming a catch-all for any civil issue.
  - Sessions 6y ago
    https://newrepublic.com/article/158104/rush-redefine-defund-police https://newrepublic.com/article/158104/rush-redefine-defund-... The meaning is not a settled question.
    - maverick2007 6y ago
      Interesting article, thanks for sharing! That everyone seems to have different definitions of what "defund the police means" and urge each other not to take the meaning too literally whereas others do take it literally reminds me a lot of Peter Thiel and his comments about not taking Trump literally during the campaign.
    - neonate 6y ago
      That's really interesting. I found this too: https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1270380991178321921 https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1270380991178321921. It seems there's a debate between people who mean "defund" literally, that is, who want to abolish police, and people who are trying to moderate or (depending on your perspective) dilute the idea. The first group seems to have been at it for longer. If so, they must resent their slogan and their idea being coopted in this way.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - wolco 6y ago
    What it really means is taking a public sector job and moving it to the private sector. Private police forces employed by the rich will maintain order on private property. The poor will be less protected.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - skannamalai 6y ago
      Okay, but in that scenario, that private police officer won't have the collective benefit of a public union. A DA won't be biting the hands that feed them if they choose to prosecute a private police officer. And the poor are dying from a death of a thousand social services cuts- diminished mental and physical health services, childcare and teen programs, etc. It's not unreasonable to assess whether local spending on police and other services can be re-balanced for better community outcomes.
      - wolco 6y ago
        DA are elected. Voted[in by the same people who want a powerful private police force. I think it would go the other way and protections would be granted to these private forces when they are asked to take over public enforcement in public spaces. They also wouldn't be bound by same standards police have now. DAs wouldn't have access to public information they have now because the information would be private. Nor would private police be forced underlaw to declose facts. That notepad that gets handed in doesn't exist nor does the body camera footage. Don't say it can't happen because many prisons are private and much worse for the prisioner, the guards, the families. Think slave labor doesn't exist? Try earning 45 cents an hour.. in America in jail.
    - Novukus 6y ago
      I'm not sure why people always jump to such extremes. When I see "defunding", I see something more like Camden, where they fired all the police officers and hired non-union to form a new police department. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/nyregion/overrun-by-crime-camden-trades-in-its-police-force.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/nyregion/overrun-by-crime... https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crime-in-camden/549542/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crim... Seems like it was relatively successful without turning into a neoliberal hellscape.
  - downerending 6y ago
    I've been watching videos of politicians literally advocating shutting down police departments, and will continue to believe my own lying eyes.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    I suspect it is an example of this: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey when in ideologically-friendly circles, you say "defund the police!" and don't worry about how literally people will take it. they will assume your position is the same as theirs and agree. when an outsider questions you, you say "oh, of course we don't mean it literally". then you go back to using the unqualified version within your bubble. after a while, who knows what you mean? who cares?
- xmprt 6y ago
  It's ironic that you say that because the whole reason we have so many problems with police is because they aren't trained in many important areas like dealing with mental health. If instead we specialized the police more and moved funding to other social services, we'd have much better trained professionals which it seems like you're in favor of.
  - rodiger 6y ago
    "Whole" reason seems a bit naive-- that probably plays a part in many of these instances but there are many others where it does not.
cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
We'll get rid of the police departments and replace them all with Committees of Public Safety. It'll be really cutting edge.
- dang 6y ago
  First, please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. Second, it looks like you've been using this site primarily for political and ideological battle. We don't allow that, regardless of which ideology you favor, because it destroys the curious conversation this site is supposed to exist for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. If you or anyone wants more info about how and why we moderate HN on this question, there are many past explanations at these links: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20primarily%20test&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20political%20overlap&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- trianglem 6y ago
  Yeah with far fewer bad boys with guns. We only really need someone with guns to respond to a situation when a violent crime is in progress. There are many, many crimes that are not and there is no need for a cop with a gun to show up to all of them.
the-dude 6y ago
We have unarmed second tier 'enforcers' in NL ( BOA's ). They patrol some city centers, give parking tickets etc. They have been asked to enforce the 1.5m rule, encountered agression and started protesting because ... they want to be armed. ( They have called for arms before COVID ) edit: Oh, forgot to add : we have these 'enforcers', and their responsibilities have been extended, because we basically defunded the police.
- klaaz0r 6y ago
  The fact that they held a protest to get more weapons during these times really showed they should not have sticks or a taser.
- chrischen 6y ago
  Part of the problem is that America's criminals are very well armed... and that's due to America allowing people to be armed.
  - the-dude 6y ago
    I am just pointing out that even unarmed civilians will be a problem.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      It does not make sense to me that unarmed members of the public are more dangerous in the US than anywhere else.
      - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
        Whatever the reason be it cultural, environmental, or ?? the US violent crime rate even removing all gun related incidents is still significantly high then most other first world countries.
        renewiltord 6y ago
trianglem 6y ago
I think the best thing for America would be to completely dissolve the police union. This single action should fix a lot of the issues.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  That's really what "defund the police" does. The police union has a toxic contract with the police department. By dissolving the counterparty of the contract, you remove it from the equation. New law enforcement agencies can start from scratch without the weight of either the contract or, initially, any of the problematic personnel.
  - hpoe 6y ago
    So having seen many ground up rewrites of code I have to ask how do we make sure that when we redo the police we avoid the problems we got this time around?
    - the-dude 6y ago
      Try Rust?
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      Police toxicity is a path-dependent phenomenon. We got here by decades of incrementalism, where politicians, many of whom were, at the time, avowed racists, agreed to various aspects of civilian-police relations. Simply starting over today with current civilian leadership to draft a new doctrine guarantees a dramatically different outcome.
      - seunosewa 6y ago
        > Simply starting over today with current civilian leadership to draft a new doctrine guarantees a dramatically different outcome. The current leadership (Trump) is very racist and authoritarian, so I'm not sure that your confidence fits the current time;
designdesign 6y ago
It's absurd that it's taken this much to have a national dialogue about how problematic the "social services with a gun" approach is.
- rodiger 6y ago
  It's a hard question because many "social services" calls are violent. Do we expect a social worker to protect a child from an abusive parent? Do we send both an officer and a social worker? How do we know the people calling 911 were accurate in their description of the situation or that it won't escalate? Regardless, I agree that the dialogue is important and overdue.
  - designdesign 6y ago
    Right but on the other side, how many situations escalate because now they have an armed person with a few months of training on the scene. "Do we expect a social worker to protect a child from an abusive parent?" This already happens a lot. Often police can't do anything substantive unless there's a crime in action or some existing record. A social worker might be the only safe long-term presence around (and availability/quality of social workers is an enormous problem). Removing children from their homes can often put them in the foster system, which is also woefully inadequate and has funding/employment issues. If it doesn't come from defunding the police, I think the major piece to take away from this overall conversation is that Americans are in dire need of better social programs that can better treat these things before policing is needed. At the moment we have a weak mental health system and an overbearing policing system. It's no wonder our prisons are filled, our homeless have rampant addiction issues, and people are getting shot on the street.
    - rodiger 6y ago
      Having done work as an EMT, people get violent on their own volition more often than you may think. Completely anecdotal but I've seen dozens of drunk/high/mentally ill etc people attack others and zero incidents where the cops escalated the situation. It seems to me that cops/no cops each has its own pros and cons and neither is a clear "right" solution. We definitely need more mental health support and less frivolous prosecution for things like drug possession and homelessness. Social programs would (hopefully) go a long way in addressing some of these at their root cause.
SkyBelow 6y ago
One idea I've seen is the idea that a dollar of funding spent elsewhere can reduce crime more than a dollar of funding spent on policing. This isn't true for every dollar, as funding often comes with diminishing returns. For example, $400k away from police but instead spent in youth programs will give kids more ways to engage in the activities which reduce their likelihood of being engage in petty crimes due to boredom. As for those demanding full defunding, I doubt they actually want that. Demanding exactly what they want would be a bit like walking into a salary negotiation and starting with the salary you are willing to accept.
eric_b 6y ago
I see a lot of people saying "Defund the police doesn't mean no police". Ok, fine. But it's a shitty slogan that, regardless of actual meaning, is doing more harm than good. Normal people don't get the nuance. To them it just sounds like the "defunders" want to get rid of all police. And normal people think that is a very fucking bad idea. Do you know what regular people do when they are worried about their safety, children or their property? They vote in candidates who are tough on crime. I think for meaningful police reform the slogan needs to change. You need to get normal people on board. "Defunding" is not the way to do that.
- throwsoundpop 6y ago
  It's akin to "single payer" in the health insurance context. If you're not already well-versed in the subject, you probably won't know what it means, because it's focusing on the process rather than the intended result.
- minikites 6y ago
  We've tried to reform the police for decades. It hasn't worked. Defund the police.
- voisin 6y ago
  How about “Deunionize Police”? Doesn’t have the same ring, but would solve many of the issues people are protesting about (accountability, etc).
  - KorematsuFred 6y ago
    Democrats are unlikely to do that. If de-unionizing police is solution to incompetent cops what is the solution to incompetent schools ?
    - joelhoffman 6y ago
      I think most people do not see most teachers as the basic problem in public schools. E.g. polls show overwhelming support for paying teachers more. The same has been true of police, but less so - Maybe that's changed? If people perceive most of the workers as the basic problem in addition to the management and the government, which they rarely do, but police may now be an exception, I don't see why the union should be spared.
twblalock 6y ago
If most people realized that protesters mean "abolish" when they say "defund", the reaction would be a bit different (see https://newrepublic.com/article/158104/rush-redefine-defund-police https://newrepublic.com/article/158104/rush-redefine-defund-...). When most people hear "defund the police" they assume it means cutting police budgets, and perhaps also involves repurposing money for social services. But reforming any organization generally takes more money, not less -- for example, things like more/better/longer training for officers and better handling of citizen complaints all cost money. Both of the generally accepted options would have bad outcomes: a society without any policing, or police departments mandated to reform without the funding necessary to succeed.
- nickff 6y ago
  Many police organizations have been violating rights and abusing people for decades; saying that they need more money before they fix their problem just astonishes me. Do you really think the populace will trust them to change? If someone's been violating your trust for an extended period of time, they need to earn it back before you give them anything they want.
  - twblalock 6y ago
    How do you expect them to "earn it back" without investing more money to pay for better training and investigations of citizen complaints?
    - nickff 6y ago
      Well, I don't know if they can. The analogy that comes to mind is that of an long-term abusive spouse: When you threaten to leave, they say they'll change, they just need a little time and your help. Do you believe them?
  - ghthor 6y ago
    Many federal government organizations have been violating rights and abusing people for decades; saying that they need more money before they fix their problem just astonishes me. Do you really think the populace will trust them to change? If someone's been violating your trust for an extended period of time, they need to earn it back before you give them anything they want.
mkolodny 6y ago
If the goal is to prevent police brutality, it seems like it would be more effective to deal with the problem directly - punish police officers who use excessive force. Derek Chauvin, the officer charged for murdering George Floyd, has had 18 previous complaints against him [0]. If police officers can get away with using excessive force, then they might think that it's acceptable behavior. Reducing the police force by 20% could reduce police brutality by 20%. But you're also reducing legitimate police activity by 20%. I'd rather see efforts focused on getting justice for victims of police brutality and excessive force. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/minneapolis-officer-complaints-george-floyd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/minneapolis-officer-compla...
- leviathant 6y ago
  >If the goal is to prevent police brutality, it seems like it would be more effective to deal with the problem directly - punish police officers who use excessive force. Regulation without teeth is ineffective. This is another example of what people mean when they say the system is inherently flawed and needs to be disassembled and rebuilt from the ground up: https://twitter.com/michaelhayes/status/1270059013854711821 https://twitter.com/michaelhayes/status/1270059013854711821
  - mkolodny 6y ago
    > Regulation without teeth is ineffective. Then create regulation with teeth. Create laws that make it clear what counts as excessive police force. Create a government body whose job is to investigate and prosecute officers charged with excessive force.
    - verdverm 6y ago
      In the states, many of these laws are on a state by state basis. We could see something at the federal level, and then we have one more law that will be contended by someone. Even if a law where to be written, with more specifics, we still have interpretation in the judicial system which can take many years to become tested and understood enough.
KorematsuFred 6y ago
You can't make good policies as emotional reaction of a recent event. I have seen next to 0 non-radical politically feasible research from left wing or black think tanks. Most of the research focused on reducing police violence comes from the Libertarian think tanks like Cato or Fee. Conservative think tanks somehow like police brutality. President's tweet today[1] perfectly summarizes the position of conservatives on police violence. "Defund the police" could have been sensible slogan had these people talked about it for last 10 years producing research and suggestions. Right now it is just a rallying cry. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-draws-rebukes-for-suggesting-75-year-old-protester-pushed-to-the-ground-in-buffalo-was-part-of-a-set-up/2020/06/09/968ed40e-aa66-11ea-9063-e69bd6520940_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-draws-rebukes-...
guscost 6y ago
Disciplinary policies are "on the table" in negotiations between many city governments and police unions. Taking away funding for salaries will actually add more pressure to make other concessions, which will make the police brutality problem even worse. Collective bargaining with police (for these concessions, at least) needs to end now. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/03/869176943/police-unions-and-civilian-deaths https://www.npr.org/2020/06/03/869176943/police-unions-and-c...
frankbreetz 6y ago
Progressives are notorious for clutching defeat from the jaws of victory. Why are not calling this "reform the police" or "police aren't social workers" or "invest in prevention instead of police". The are literally hundreds of things we can call it that the majority of Americans would get behind. I find it very frustrating because there is much better ways to deal with a variety of issues like homelessness, drug addiction, and even some traffic stops, but the slogan is going to keep that from happening.
- jonahrd 6y ago
  The takeaway from these events is clear: There are a very large portion of Americans who live in a separate world from you, where "defund the police" does sound like an ideal goal, and police interactions are solely a source of danger. Because the police are there to protect property of the upper class, it may be hard for a member of the upper class to envision a functioning society without those protections. However, what these demonstrations are trying to show is that there is a large portion of society in which the police are simply an oppressive force.
  - frankbreetz 6y ago
    I don't know what "a very large portion of Americans" is, but if the question is "should we get rid of all police? " I would be very surprised if more then 10% of people agree with that.
mydongle 6y ago
Sounds fun until you think about how the wealthy/rich already have private security and so they never needed police. The police was primarily for the regular people who don't and can't afford to have private security.

38 points by SamWhited 6y ago

The need for policing is not going to disappear. If we don't have trained professionals, we'll have untrained amateurs. Doubt that will be an improvement.

ladberg 6y ago
"Defund the police" doesn't mean taking away all police. It just means reducing funding and reducing responsibilities of the police to avoid them becoming a catch-all for any civil issue.
- Sessions 6y ago
  https://newrepublic.com/article/158104/rush-redefine-defund-police https://newrepublic.com/article/158104/rush-redefine-defund-... The meaning is not a settled question.
  - maverick2007 6y ago
    Interesting article, thanks for sharing! That everyone seems to have different definitions of what "defund the police means" and urge each other not to take the meaning too literally whereas others do take it literally reminds me a lot of Peter Thiel and his comments about not taking Trump literally during the campaign.
  - neonate 6y ago
    That's really interesting. I found this too: https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1270380991178321921 https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1270380991178321921. It seems there's a debate between people who mean "defund" literally, that is, who want to abolish police, and people who are trying to moderate or (depending on your perspective) dilute the idea. The first group seems to have been at it for longer. If so, they must resent their slogan and their idea being coopted in this way.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- wolco 6y ago
  What it really means is taking a public sector job and moving it to the private sector. Private police forces employed by the rich will maintain order on private property. The poor will be less protected.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - skannamalai 6y ago
    Okay, but in that scenario, that private police officer won't have the collective benefit of a public union. A DA won't be biting the hands that feed them if they choose to prosecute a private police officer. And the poor are dying from a death of a thousand social services cuts- diminished mental and physical health services, childcare and teen programs, etc. It's not unreasonable to assess whether local spending on police and other services can be re-balanced for better community outcomes.
    - wolco 6y ago
      DA are elected. Voted[in by the same people who want a powerful private police force. I think it would go the other way and protections would be granted to these private forces when they are asked to take over public enforcement in public spaces. They also wouldn't be bound by same standards police have now. DAs wouldn't have access to public information they have now because the information would be private. Nor would private police be forced underlaw to declose facts. That notepad that gets handed in doesn't exist nor does the body camera footage. Don't say it can't happen because many prisons are private and much worse for the prisioner, the guards, the families. Think slave labor doesn't exist? Try earning 45 cents an hour.. in America in jail.
  - Novukus 6y ago
    I'm not sure why people always jump to such extremes. When I see "defunding", I see something more like Camden, where they fired all the police officers and hired non-union to form a new police department. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/nyregion/overrun-by-crime-camden-trades-in-its-police-force.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/nyregion/overrun-by-crime... https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crime-in-camden/549542/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crim... Seems like it was relatively successful without turning into a neoliberal hellscape.
- downerending 6y ago
  I've been watching videos of politicians literally advocating shutting down police departments, and will continue to believe my own lying eyes.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  I suspect it is an example of this: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey when in ideologically-friendly circles, you say "defund the police!" and don't worry about how literally people will take it. they will assume your position is the same as theirs and agree. when an outsider questions you, you say "oh, of course we don't mean it literally". then you go back to using the unqualified version within your bubble. after a while, who knows what you mean? who cares?
xmprt 6y ago
It's ironic that you say that because the whole reason we have so many problems with police is because they aren't trained in many important areas like dealing with mental health. If instead we specialized the police more and moved funding to other social services, we'd have much better trained professionals which it seems like you're in favor of.
- rodiger 6y ago
  "Whole" reason seems a bit naive-- that probably plays a part in many of these instances but there are many others where it does not.

cheaprentalyeti 6y ago

We'll get rid of the police departments and replace them all with Committees of Public Safety. It'll be really cutting edge.

dang 6y ago
First, please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. Second, it looks like you've been using this site primarily for political and ideological battle. We don't allow that, regardless of which ideology you favor, because it destroys the curious conversation this site is supposed to exist for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. If you or anyone wants more info about how and why we moderate HN on this question, there are many past explanations at these links: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20primarily%20test&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20political%20overlap&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
trianglem 6y ago
Yeah with far fewer bad boys with guns. We only really need someone with guns to respond to a situation when a violent crime is in progress. There are many, many crimes that are not and there is no need for a cop with a gun to show up to all of them.

the-dude 6y ago

We have unarmed second tier 'enforcers' in NL ( BOA's ). They patrol some city centers, give parking tickets etc. They have been asked to enforce the 1.5m rule, encountered agression and started protesting because ... they want to be armed. ( They have called for arms before COVID ) edit: Oh, forgot to add : we have these 'enforcers', and their responsibilities have been extended, because we basically defunded the police.

klaaz0r 6y ago
The fact that they held a protest to get more weapons during these times really showed they should not have sticks or a taser.
chrischen 6y ago
Part of the problem is that America's criminals are very well armed... and that's due to America allowing people to be armed.
- the-dude 6y ago
  I am just pointing out that even unarmed civilians will be a problem.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    It does not make sense to me that unarmed members of the public are more dangerous in the US than anywhere else.
    - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
      Whatever the reason be it cultural, environmental, or ?? the US violent crime rate even removing all gun related incidents is still significantly high then most other first world countries.
      - renewiltord 6y ago

trianglem 6y ago

I think the best thing for America would be to completely dissolve the police union. This single action should fix a lot of the issues.

jeffbee 6y ago
That's really what "defund the police" does. The police union has a toxic contract with the police department. By dissolving the counterparty of the contract, you remove it from the equation. New law enforcement agencies can start from scratch without the weight of either the contract or, initially, any of the problematic personnel.
- hpoe 6y ago
  So having seen many ground up rewrites of code I have to ask how do we make sure that when we redo the police we avoid the problems we got this time around?
  - the-dude 6y ago
    Try Rust?
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    Police toxicity is a path-dependent phenomenon. We got here by decades of incrementalism, where politicians, many of whom were, at the time, avowed racists, agreed to various aspects of civilian-police relations. Simply starting over today with current civilian leadership to draft a new doctrine guarantees a dramatically different outcome.
    - seunosewa 6y ago
      > Simply starting over today with current civilian leadership to draft a new doctrine guarantees a dramatically different outcome. The current leadership (Trump) is very racist and authoritarian, so I'm not sure that your confidence fits the current time;

designdesign 6y ago

It's absurd that it's taken this much to have a national dialogue about how problematic the "social services with a gun" approach is.

rodiger 6y ago
It's a hard question because many "social services" calls are violent. Do we expect a social worker to protect a child from an abusive parent? Do we send both an officer and a social worker? How do we know the people calling 911 were accurate in their description of the situation or that it won't escalate? Regardless, I agree that the dialogue is important and overdue.
- designdesign 6y ago
  Right but on the other side, how many situations escalate because now they have an armed person with a few months of training on the scene. "Do we expect a social worker to protect a child from an abusive parent?" This already happens a lot. Often police can't do anything substantive unless there's a crime in action or some existing record. A social worker might be the only safe long-term presence around (and availability/quality of social workers is an enormous problem). Removing children from their homes can often put them in the foster system, which is also woefully inadequate and has funding/employment issues. If it doesn't come from defunding the police, I think the major piece to take away from this overall conversation is that Americans are in dire need of better social programs that can better treat these things before policing is needed. At the moment we have a weak mental health system and an overbearing policing system. It's no wonder our prisons are filled, our homeless have rampant addiction issues, and people are getting shot on the street.
  - rodiger 6y ago
    Having done work as an EMT, people get violent on their own volition more often than you may think. Completely anecdotal but I've seen dozens of drunk/high/mentally ill etc people attack others and zero incidents where the cops escalated the situation. It seems to me that cops/no cops each has its own pros and cons and neither is a clear "right" solution. We definitely need more mental health support and less frivolous prosecution for things like drug possession and homelessness. Social programs would (hopefully) go a long way in addressing some of these at their root cause.

SkyBelow 6y ago

One idea I've seen is the idea that a dollar of funding spent elsewhere can reduce crime more than a dollar of funding spent on policing. This isn't true for every dollar, as funding often comes with diminishing returns. For example, $400k away from police but instead spent in youth programs will give kids more ways to engage in the activities which reduce their likelihood of being engage in petty crimes due to boredom. As for those demanding full defunding, I doubt they actually want that. Demanding exactly what they want would be a bit like walking into a salary negotiation and starting with the salary you are willing to accept.

eric_b 6y ago

I see a lot of people saying "Defund the police doesn't mean no police". Ok, fine. But it's a shitty slogan that, regardless of actual meaning, is doing more harm than good. Normal people don't get the nuance. To them it just sounds like the "defunders" want to get rid of all police. And normal people think that is a very fucking bad idea. Do you know what regular people do when they are worried about their safety, children or their property? They vote in candidates who are tough on crime. I think for meaningful police reform the slogan needs to change. You need to get normal people on board. "Defunding" is not the way to do that.

throwsoundpop 6y ago
It's akin to "single payer" in the health insurance context. If you're not already well-versed in the subject, you probably won't know what it means, because it's focusing on the process rather than the intended result.
minikites 6y ago
We've tried to reform the police for decades. It hasn't worked. Defund the police.
voisin 6y ago
How about “Deunionize Police”? Doesn’t have the same ring, but would solve many of the issues people are protesting about (accountability, etc).
- KorematsuFred 6y ago
  Democrats are unlikely to do that. If de-unionizing police is solution to incompetent cops what is the solution to incompetent schools ?
  - joelhoffman 6y ago
    I think most people do not see most teachers as the basic problem in public schools. E.g. polls show overwhelming support for paying teachers more. The same has been true of police, but less so - Maybe that's changed? If people perceive most of the workers as the basic problem in addition to the management and the government, which they rarely do, but police may now be an exception, I don't see why the union should be spared.

twblalock 6y ago

If most people realized that protesters mean "abolish" when they say "defund", the reaction would be a bit different (see https://newrepublic.com/article/158104/rush-redefine-defund-police https://newrepublic.com/article/158104/rush-redefine-defund-...). When most people hear "defund the police" they assume it means cutting police budgets, and perhaps also involves repurposing money for social services. But reforming any organization generally takes more money, not less -- for example, things like more/better/longer training for officers and better handling of citizen complaints all cost money. Both of the generally accepted options would have bad outcomes: a society without any policing, or police departments mandated to reform without the funding necessary to succeed.

nickff 6y ago
Many police organizations have been violating rights and abusing people for decades; saying that they need more money before they fix their problem just astonishes me. Do you really think the populace will trust them to change? If someone's been violating your trust for an extended period of time, they need to earn it back before you give them anything they want.
- twblalock 6y ago
  How do you expect them to "earn it back" without investing more money to pay for better training and investigations of citizen complaints?
  - nickff 6y ago
    Well, I don't know if they can. The analogy that comes to mind is that of an long-term abusive spouse: When you threaten to leave, they say they'll change, they just need a little time and your help. Do you believe them?
- ghthor 6y ago
  Many federal government organizations have been violating rights and abusing people for decades; saying that they need more money before they fix their problem just astonishes me. Do you really think the populace will trust them to change? If someone's been violating your trust for an extended period of time, they need to earn it back before you give them anything they want.

mkolodny 6y ago

If the goal is to prevent police brutality, it seems like it would be more effective to deal with the problem directly - punish police officers who use excessive force. Derek Chauvin, the officer charged for murdering George Floyd, has had 18 previous complaints against him [0]. If police officers can get away with using excessive force, then they might think that it's acceptable behavior. Reducing the police force by 20% could reduce police brutality by 20%. But you're also reducing legitimate police activity by 20%. I'd rather see efforts focused on getting justice for victims of police brutality and excessive force. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/minneapolis-officer-complaints-george-floyd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/minneapolis-officer-compla...

leviathant 6y ago
>If the goal is to prevent police brutality, it seems like it would be more effective to deal with the problem directly - punish police officers who use excessive force. Regulation without teeth is ineffective. This is another example of what people mean when they say the system is inherently flawed and needs to be disassembled and rebuilt from the ground up: https://twitter.com/michaelhayes/status/1270059013854711821 https://twitter.com/michaelhayes/status/1270059013854711821
- mkolodny 6y ago
  > Regulation without teeth is ineffective. Then create regulation with teeth. Create laws that make it clear what counts as excessive police force. Create a government body whose job is to investigate and prosecute officers charged with excessive force.
  - verdverm 6y ago
    In the states, many of these laws are on a state by state basis. We could see something at the federal level, and then we have one more law that will be contended by someone. Even if a law where to be written, with more specifics, we still have interpretation in the judicial system which can take many years to become tested and understood enough.

KorematsuFred 6y ago

You can't make good policies as emotional reaction of a recent event. I have seen next to 0 non-radical politically feasible research from left wing or black think tanks. Most of the research focused on reducing police violence comes from the Libertarian think tanks like Cato or Fee. Conservative think tanks somehow like police brutality. President's tweet today[1] perfectly summarizes the position of conservatives on police violence. "Defund the police" could have been sensible slogan had these people talked about it for last 10 years producing research and suggestions. Right now it is just a rallying cry. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-draws-rebukes-for-suggesting-75-year-old-protester-pushed-to-the-ground-in-buffalo-was-part-of-a-set-up/2020/06/09/968ed40e-aa66-11ea-9063-e69bd6520940_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-draws-rebukes-...

guscost 6y ago

Disciplinary policies are "on the table" in negotiations between many city governments and police unions. Taking away funding for salaries will actually add more pressure to make other concessions, which will make the police brutality problem even worse. Collective bargaining with police (for these concessions, at least) needs to end now. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/03/869176943/police-unions-and-civilian-deaths https://www.npr.org/2020/06/03/869176943/police-unions-and-c...

frankbreetz 6y ago

Progressives are notorious for clutching defeat from the jaws of victory. Why are not calling this "reform the police" or "police aren't social workers" or "invest in prevention instead of police". The are literally hundreds of things we can call it that the majority of Americans would get behind. I find it very frustrating because there is much better ways to deal with a variety of issues like homelessness, drug addiction, and even some traffic stops, but the slogan is going to keep that from happening.

jonahrd 6y ago
The takeaway from these events is clear: There are a very large portion of Americans who live in a separate world from you, where "defund the police" does sound like an ideal goal, and police interactions are solely a source of danger. Because the police are there to protect property of the upper class, it may be hard for a member of the upper class to envision a functioning society without those protections. However, what these demonstrations are trying to show is that there is a large portion of society in which the police are simply an oppressive force.
- frankbreetz 6y ago
  I don't know what "a very large portion of Americans" is, but if the question is "should we get rid of all police? " I would be very surprised if more then 10% of people agree with that.

mydongle 6y ago

Sounds fun until you think about how the wealthy/rich already have private security and so they never needed police. The police was primarily for the regular people who don't and can't afford to have private security.