5 ms·

This is interesting given the protests. As I understand it, San Francisco is generally considered to be a very liberal and progressive city. The politicians are

This is interesting given the protests. As I understand it, San Francisco is generally considered to be a very liberal and progressive city. The politicians are generally considered to be very liberal and progressive. These are the same groups, however, that want to defund the police. I don’t get it. You can want both police reform, and policing, but without the police there’s not really anyone capable, trained, or just available to confront dangerous criminals and individuals. It’s almost like a very radical group pushed for something and they went way too far, so now the more rational side is like whoa wait a second

wyager 5y ago
"Defund the police" is mostly a shorthand for "federalize the police". Some people with little political power might interpret it literally, but they're not really calling the shots.
khazhoux 5y ago
You're mixing issues. The homelessness problem has been growing for the last 15 years (I mean, before that too, but I remember never being shocked in the early 2000s like I always am today), whereas the "Defund" thing is only in the last year. The homelessness crisis is not caused by a lack of police enforcement.
- underseacables 5y ago
  True, but lack of police enforcement has led to greater numbers of homeless people acting without worry, setting up camps, pooping in the streets, vandalism, assault, robbery, etc. Greater police presence is an excellent deterrent for homeless misbehavior and crime. Otherwise there is no limitation on what those unhoused persons can do, thus exacerbating the problem. It may not have caused it, but the lack of police is certainly not helping it
  - adjkant 5y ago
    > but lack of police enforcement has led to greater numbers of homeless people acting without worry, setting up camps, pooping in the streets, vandalism, assault, robbery, etc. From my experience, homelessness is not affected by police presence/enforcement other than to force them into other areas. An unhoused person has to go somewhere, so using police to approach that simply pushes them in larger numbers into other areas, making it someone else's problem. That seems like a huge waste of resources.
    - spamizbad 5y ago
      Yes. I don’t think people realize police are expensive. You shouldn’t use them to “solve” problems unless you have no other means available. Police also aren’t terribly interested in the demoralizing work that gets put on their shoulders by a lack of investment in social infrastructure. Nobody becomes a cop to rip down a tent city. There’s a sick irony that the very same people who are fighting “for” the police against the defund crowd also demand police officers perform tons of unnecessary grueling work the police themselves willingly admit they aren’t trained to handle. I think for many people “Support the Police” really means only support their budget; not support them as human beings or public servants.
  - willsr 5y ago
    "homeless people acting without worry, setting up camps, pooping in the streets" - otherwise known as existing
  - tootie 5y ago
    One of the principles of defund is to use more appropriate responders to things like homelessness. Police arresting homeless and moving them somewhere else is pointless. Having social workers who can get them into a shelter and maybe treatment could actually ameliorate the problem.
  - DanHulton 5y ago
    Whole lotta assumptions here. The biggest one is "Greater police presence is an excellent deterrent for homeless misbehavior and crime." So much of what you said is, honestly, what a lot of homeless people need to do, just to survive. When you don't have safe, ready access to bathrooms, you go outside. When you don't have a job and can't get money, you steal to eat. When you are subject to this misery for long enough, you stop caring about what polite society cares about. Police presence sure does deter this behaviour, but only where police are present. It doesn't _stop_ this behaviour, because it can't. Cops can't fix homelessness, they can only move it along somewhere else, turn it into some other neighborhood's problem. If you really want to fix the problem, look at you and me. We don't crap outside, we don't steal, we're not making neighborhoods scary and dangerous (I assume). And why? Because our basic needs are met. We have food, water, shelter, sanitation, entertainment, employment. If you really want to fix the problem, THAT'S the problem you fix. Sadly, social programs for the homeless ("handouts") aren't nearly so politically popular as spending that money on policing, the legal system, and the prison system, despite being many orders more efficient.
    - desine 5y ago
      There's lots of programs available in California. If you're not currently drunk or high, you can generally get a bed and food for a day at a shelter in most West Coast metropolitan environments. If you're in these shelters, there's jobs programs that can get you earning a modest paycheck quickly. Unfortunately there's a large and growing segment of unhoused that don't want this, though. They want to be able to drink, or use other drugs. And that makes them ineligble for most of these programs. So they set up camp, continue to decline in mental health due to stress, diet, drug use. And they spiral farther into the drain. It's these people that need the strong hand of law enforcement to whip them into shape. It's for their own good, honestly, which bothers me as a big proponent of personal liberty and personal responsibility. But their options are either shape up, or slowly decline to a tragic death. A puppy who is not trained not to bite toddlers very well may end up getting euthanized. Sometimes strict enforcement is the morally just choice. edit: my point is that both are needed. The options for the self motivated, and the guiding hand of arrest for those who cannot save themselves.
- truffdog 5y ago
  Dianne Feinstein ran for mayor in like 78 on a platform of solving homelessness. It's wayyyy older.
techrat 5y ago
What's not to get? https://i.imgur.com/8xlOIW9.png https://i.imgur.com/8xlOIW9.png The whole point of defunding the police is to get the funding back to where it belongs. https://citymonitor.ai/government/the-reality-of-us-city-budgets-police-funding-eclipses-most-other-agencies https://citymonitor.ai/government/the-reality-of-us-city-bud... - The reality of US city budgets: Police funding eclipses most other agencies’
- Justin_K 5y ago
  There has already been extensive spending in these areas and what do we have to show for it? EDIT: While there's many factors that drive crime, crime was lower before the defund movements.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Does this logic apply to policing, too? > crime was lower before the defund movements Remind me, did anything else happen in 2020 that might have had an impact on crime?
    - decremental 5y ago
      Good point. The rioting encouraged by politicians and the media happened in 2020.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        Anything else happen that year?
        slipframe 5y ago
        Instead of being passive aggressive with this psuedo-scoratic bullshit, why don't you just say outright what you mean? You're talking about covid. A global pandemic is a shitty excuse for these hyper-local phenomena. It's not covid; it's the voting public of San Francisco (and two or three other west coast cities) and the disastrous politicians they elect.
tolbish 5y ago
Police reform does not mean the police should not exist. It means the police should be reformed. So that is a strawman argument. Equating police reform with being anti-police plays right into propaganda.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- prewett 5y ago
  Then they should say "reform the police" not "defund the police". If you "defund the police", they will cease to exist, since nobody will be paying them. It might or might not be what the "defund" people are actually want, but it is what they are saying, so it isn't really a strawman argument. Personally, I assume people actually mean what they say, so I think it's more likely they just want to be "radical" and haven't thought things through at all (as OP pointed out).
  - nemothekid 5y ago
    >Then they should say "reform the police" not "defund the police". If you "defund the police", they will cease to exist, since nobody will be paying them. Great idea, let's call the CEO of a grass roots protest and have their marketing department update the website copy. Do you realize what you are saying? >Personally, I assume people actually mean what they say, so I think it's more likely they just want to be "radical" and haven't thought things through at all (as OP pointed out). I think a very useful skill in life is being able to read past slogans and actually understand what people are asking for. Kaepernick was trying to create a message about police reform for 5 years now, and no one cared about that - only the kneeling bit. "Defund the police" is the only message that has stuck. If extremist messaging is what gets people talking about the problem then so be it. There is no CEO of protests that develops a finely tuned marketing message for what is essentially a populist movement.
    - prewett 5y ago
      > I think a very useful skill in life is being able to read past slogans and actually understand what people are asking for I think a very useful skill in life is accurately communicating what you actually want to say so that the receiver understands your message. The responsibility of communicating is on the protestor--they are the ones trying to change things. I don't think that the extremist language had anything to do with getting people talking about the problem. George Floyd's death is what got people talking about it. Seems to me the more radical people are advocating "defund the police" as a solution. If they really want police reform, why not just say that? They wouldn't alienate everyone who thinks that is a silly idea. So tactically it is a major blunder because they've needlessly lost support. Why would someone who disagrees with "defund the police" as a solution risk working with them--what if they actually believe what they say? > If extremist messaging is what gets people talking about the problem then so be it. This cuts both ways. Can I assume that you're good with the right wingers' extremism, too? And how are you going to keep it from escalating? They still aren't listening, better make the statement louder, maybe in blood this time? Extremism begets extremism. I am pretty opposed to extremism, and I think a large part of the problem in the US is that the only voices are the extreme ones shouting really loud. A group of friends driven by loud, extreme voices is dysfunctional, and larger groups are no different. Besides, reacting to a problem with extremes doesn't solve the problem, it only changes what problem you have. Historically it usually changes for the worst.
sidlls 5y ago
Considered to be progressive by whom? Like most of what passed for “progressive” in California, it’s generally a narrow set of issues to which the label might apply. A lot of SF is now dominated by the tech industry which is almost libertarian in its views, but for a narrow slice of identity politics.
nemothekid 5y ago
>The politicians are generally considered to be very liberal and progressive. These are the same groups, however, that want to defund the police. I don’t get it. It's the fact that you see an issue like homelessness and think "this is what we pay the police for", that blinds you to the actual grievances of the protestors. Instead of actually addressing issue, most Americans have developed the crutch of just calling the police who have just opted to either move the issue or throw the homeless in jail. It's sort of frustrating that on Hacker News people haven't done anymore than surface level research into the grievances behind "defund the police". A lot of their argument seems to stem to the fact that many problems they face are relegated to police (who have the funding) when things like housing and mental health services should be funded instead. San Francisco's problem (and, I'd argue the "true" motivation behind the restorative justice) is that the city can no longer afford to in-prison more people for basic offenses. The housing problem has now extended to prisons and I believe COVID exasperated that issue as people wanted to avoid having overcrowded prisons. That plus the massively reduced city traffic has had homeless people claim a lot of open spaces. At this point I don't think funding more police departments would put a dent in the issue.
- ryanobjc 5y ago
  A lot of so-called “crimes” are societal creations. It’s a crime to steal food: is it a crime to let someone go hungry? Actually if that someone is your child under 18, it is in fact a crime. There are other crimes that aren’t even considered criminal nor even enforced. For example wage theft. You cannot get your boss arrested for clocking you out before you leave. Yet your boss can have you arrested for taking from the till. Point is, most crimes are because of society structure. Lying on a sidewalk? Setting up a tent somewhere? Living in a car or rv? In a better structured society there would be better support than calling the police. That’s the essence of “defund the police”. For many people with well resourced families, allowing a child or family member to live in the street because they lost their job just wouldn’t happen. Generally most people get support from their families (and friends) in this way. But what about those that don’t have those resources? Well apparently “call the cops on them” is the American solution. Great.
threatofrain 5y ago
The police can only effectively deal with the homeless the way LA did in Echo Park -- by kicking them out. Then it becomes an issue for somewhere else.
aksss 5y ago
What don’t you get? Policy makers are out over their skis believing in a utopia that runs contrary to human nature and economics. They can’t admit the physics of the problem so just keep insisting they haven’t gone far enough. Graft creeps in as it always does, corrupting the machinery that (even generously) may have originally been born with the best of intentions. Everyone is afraid of being labeled as intolerant or an asshole so nobody has the courage to call out the emperor’s lack of clothes - to say this isn’t working and needs radical correction to enforce some social norms and define acceptable behavior under penalty of imprisonment, labor, or some undesirable consequence for the offender. People are thus held prisoner by the group think and the social glare. It’s only worse now with social media enabling a cancel culture with very real and significant consequences.
- tolbish 5y ago
  > to say this isn’t working and needs radical correction to enforce some social norms and define acceptable behavior under penalty of imprisonment, labor, or some undesirable consequence for the offender We should really be focusing on the underlying mental health issues rather than resorting to a base desire to crack skulls. One such example is opening up (humane) mental health institutions. For people who are out of their gourd but aren't your typical criminal case, these mental health institutions would exist for these people to go if they consistently prove to be a danger to themselves and/or others.
  - aksss 5y ago
    Who said anything about cracking skulls? Institutionalization is simply a manner of imprisonment, but it is still in that column. State-run institutions were shut down, but interestingly the amount of "institutionalized" people in the population remained much the same, they basically just moved into the prison system, which I think is arguably worse. But yeah, I'm all for addressing mental health and being more "liberal" with institutionalization. It's better than having crazy people cursing at kids on the street, threatening violence and creating public health hazards.
  - silexia 5y ago
    Cracking skulls is actually the more humane solution. If a city makes harsh examples of a few criminals, it dissuades many more potential criminals from ever getting started. Allowing criminals and homeless to run rampant will lead to the rapid increases in both we have seen in SF. Then there still will be an inevitable backlash, and that will involve the cracking of far more skulls than would have happened by doing it early. If a city never enforces its laws, the criminals will crack far more innocent skulls. You can't escape the cracking of skulls, you just choose who does the cracking and how many get hurt.

wyager 5y ago

"Defund the police" is mostly a shorthand for "federalize the police". Some people with little political power might interpret it literally, but they're not really calling the shots.

khazhoux 5y ago

You're mixing issues. The homelessness problem has been growing for the last 15 years (I mean, before that too, but I remember never being shocked in the early 2000s like I always am today), whereas the "Defund" thing is only in the last year. The homelessness crisis is not caused by a lack of police enforcement.

underseacables 5y ago
True, but lack of police enforcement has led to greater numbers of homeless people acting without worry, setting up camps, pooping in the streets, vandalism, assault, robbery, etc. Greater police presence is an excellent deterrent for homeless misbehavior and crime. Otherwise there is no limitation on what those unhoused persons can do, thus exacerbating the problem. It may not have caused it, but the lack of police is certainly not helping it
- adjkant 5y ago
  > but lack of police enforcement has led to greater numbers of homeless people acting without worry, setting up camps, pooping in the streets, vandalism, assault, robbery, etc. From my experience, homelessness is not affected by police presence/enforcement other than to force them into other areas. An unhoused person has to go somewhere, so using police to approach that simply pushes them in larger numbers into other areas, making it someone else's problem. That seems like a huge waste of resources.
  - spamizbad 5y ago
    Yes. I don’t think people realize police are expensive. You shouldn’t use them to “solve” problems unless you have no other means available. Police also aren’t terribly interested in the demoralizing work that gets put on their shoulders by a lack of investment in social infrastructure. Nobody becomes a cop to rip down a tent city. There’s a sick irony that the very same people who are fighting “for” the police against the defund crowd also demand police officers perform tons of unnecessary grueling work the police themselves willingly admit they aren’t trained to handle. I think for many people “Support the Police” really means only support their budget; not support them as human beings or public servants.
- willsr 5y ago
  "homeless people acting without worry, setting up camps, pooping in the streets" - otherwise known as existing
- tootie 5y ago
  One of the principles of defund is to use more appropriate responders to things like homelessness. Police arresting homeless and moving them somewhere else is pointless. Having social workers who can get them into a shelter and maybe treatment could actually ameliorate the problem.
- DanHulton 5y ago
  Whole lotta assumptions here. The biggest one is "Greater police presence is an excellent deterrent for homeless misbehavior and crime." So much of what you said is, honestly, what a lot of homeless people need to do, just to survive. When you don't have safe, ready access to bathrooms, you go outside. When you don't have a job and can't get money, you steal to eat. When you are subject to this misery for long enough, you stop caring about what polite society cares about. Police presence sure does deter this behaviour, but only where police are present. It doesn't _stop_ this behaviour, because it can't. Cops can't fix homelessness, they can only move it along somewhere else, turn it into some other neighborhood's problem. If you really want to fix the problem, look at you and me. We don't crap outside, we don't steal, we're not making neighborhoods scary and dangerous (I assume). And why? Because our basic needs are met. We have food, water, shelter, sanitation, entertainment, employment. If you really want to fix the problem, THAT'S the problem you fix. Sadly, social programs for the homeless ("handouts") aren't nearly so politically popular as spending that money on policing, the legal system, and the prison system, despite being many orders more efficient.
  - desine 5y ago
    There's lots of programs available in California. If you're not currently drunk or high, you can generally get a bed and food for a day at a shelter in most West Coast metropolitan environments. If you're in these shelters, there's jobs programs that can get you earning a modest paycheck quickly. Unfortunately there's a large and growing segment of unhoused that don't want this, though. They want to be able to drink, or use other drugs. And that makes them ineligble for most of these programs. So they set up camp, continue to decline in mental health due to stress, diet, drug use. And they spiral farther into the drain. It's these people that need the strong hand of law enforcement to whip them into shape. It's for their own good, honestly, which bothers me as a big proponent of personal liberty and personal responsibility. But their options are either shape up, or slowly decline to a tragic death. A puppy who is not trained not to bite toddlers very well may end up getting euthanized. Sometimes strict enforcement is the morally just choice. edit: my point is that both are needed. The options for the self motivated, and the guiding hand of arrest for those who cannot save themselves.
truffdog 5y ago
Dianne Feinstein ran for mayor in like 78 on a platform of solving homelessness. It's wayyyy older.

techrat 5y ago

What's not to get? https://i.imgur.com/8xlOIW9.png https://i.imgur.com/8xlOIW9.png The whole point of defunding the police is to get the funding back to where it belongs. https://citymonitor.ai/government/the-reality-of-us-city-budgets-police-funding-eclipses-most-other-agencies https://citymonitor.ai/government/the-reality-of-us-city-bud... - The reality of US city budgets: Police funding eclipses most other agencies’

Justin_K 5y ago
There has already been extensive spending in these areas and what do we have to show for it? EDIT: While there's many factors that drive crime, crime was lower before the defund movements.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Does this logic apply to policing, too? > crime was lower before the defund movements Remind me, did anything else happen in 2020 that might have had an impact on crime?
  - decremental 5y ago
    Good point. The rioting encouraged by politicians and the media happened in 2020.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      Anything else happen that year?
      - slipframe 5y ago
        Instead of being passive aggressive with this psuedo-scoratic bullshit, why don't you just say outright what you mean? You're talking about covid. A global pandemic is a shitty excuse for these hyper-local phenomena. It's not covid; it's the voting public of San Francisco (and two or three other west coast cities) and the disastrous politicians they elect.

tolbish 5y ago

Police reform does not mean the police should not exist. It means the police should be reformed. So that is a strawman argument. Equating police reform with being anti-police plays right into propaganda.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
prewett 5y ago
Then they should say "reform the police" not "defund the police". If you "defund the police", they will cease to exist, since nobody will be paying them. It might or might not be what the "defund" people are actually want, but it is what they are saying, so it isn't really a strawman argument. Personally, I assume people actually mean what they say, so I think it's more likely they just want to be "radical" and haven't thought things through at all (as OP pointed out).
- nemothekid 5y ago
  >Then they should say "reform the police" not "defund the police". If you "defund the police", they will cease to exist, since nobody will be paying them. Great idea, let's call the CEO of a grass roots protest and have their marketing department update the website copy. Do you realize what you are saying? >Personally, I assume people actually mean what they say, so I think it's more likely they just want to be "radical" and haven't thought things through at all (as OP pointed out). I think a very useful skill in life is being able to read past slogans and actually understand what people are asking for. Kaepernick was trying to create a message about police reform for 5 years now, and no one cared about that - only the kneeling bit. "Defund the police" is the only message that has stuck. If extremist messaging is what gets people talking about the problem then so be it. There is no CEO of protests that develops a finely tuned marketing message for what is essentially a populist movement.
  - prewett 5y ago
    > I think a very useful skill in life is being able to read past slogans and actually understand what people are asking for I think a very useful skill in life is accurately communicating what you actually want to say so that the receiver understands your message. The responsibility of communicating is on the protestor--they are the ones trying to change things. I don't think that the extremist language had anything to do with getting people talking about the problem. George Floyd's death is what got people talking about it. Seems to me the more radical people are advocating "defund the police" as a solution. If they really want police reform, why not just say that? They wouldn't alienate everyone who thinks that is a silly idea. So tactically it is a major blunder because they've needlessly lost support. Why would someone who disagrees with "defund the police" as a solution risk working with them--what if they actually believe what they say? > If extremist messaging is what gets people talking about the problem then so be it. This cuts both ways. Can I assume that you're good with the right wingers' extremism, too? And how are you going to keep it from escalating? They still aren't listening, better make the statement louder, maybe in blood this time? Extremism begets extremism. I am pretty opposed to extremism, and I think a large part of the problem in the US is that the only voices are the extreme ones shouting really loud. A group of friends driven by loud, extreme voices is dysfunctional, and larger groups are no different. Besides, reacting to a problem with extremes doesn't solve the problem, it only changes what problem you have. Historically it usually changes for the worst.

sidlls 5y ago

Considered to be progressive by whom? Like most of what passed for “progressive” in California, it’s generally a narrow set of issues to which the label might apply. A lot of SF is now dominated by the tech industry which is almost libertarian in its views, but for a narrow slice of identity politics.

nemothekid 5y ago

>The politicians are generally considered to be very liberal and progressive. These are the same groups, however, that want to defund the police. I don’t get it. It's the fact that you see an issue like homelessness and think "this is what we pay the police for", that blinds you to the actual grievances of the protestors. Instead of actually addressing issue, most Americans have developed the crutch of just calling the police who have just opted to either move the issue or throw the homeless in jail. It's sort of frustrating that on Hacker News people haven't done anymore than surface level research into the grievances behind "defund the police". A lot of their argument seems to stem to the fact that many problems they face are relegated to police (who have the funding) when things like housing and mental health services should be funded instead. San Francisco's problem (and, I'd argue the "true" motivation behind the restorative justice) is that the city can no longer afford to in-prison more people for basic offenses. The housing problem has now extended to prisons and I believe COVID exasperated that issue as people wanted to avoid having overcrowded prisons. That plus the massively reduced city traffic has had homeless people claim a lot of open spaces. At this point I don't think funding more police departments would put a dent in the issue.

ryanobjc 5y ago
A lot of so-called “crimes” are societal creations. It’s a crime to steal food: is it a crime to let someone go hungry? Actually if that someone is your child under 18, it is in fact a crime. There are other crimes that aren’t even considered criminal nor even enforced. For example wage theft. You cannot get your boss arrested for clocking you out before you leave. Yet your boss can have you arrested for taking from the till. Point is, most crimes are because of society structure. Lying on a sidewalk? Setting up a tent somewhere? Living in a car or rv? In a better structured society there would be better support than calling the police. That’s the essence of “defund the police”. For many people with well resourced families, allowing a child or family member to live in the street because they lost their job just wouldn’t happen. Generally most people get support from their families (and friends) in this way. But what about those that don’t have those resources? Well apparently “call the cops on them” is the American solution. Great.

threatofrain 5y ago

The police can only effectively deal with the homeless the way LA did in Echo Park -- by kicking them out. Then it becomes an issue for somewhere else.

aksss 5y ago

What don’t you get? Policy makers are out over their skis believing in a utopia that runs contrary to human nature and economics. They can’t admit the physics of the problem so just keep insisting they haven’t gone far enough. Graft creeps in as it always does, corrupting the machinery that (even generously) may have originally been born with the best of intentions. Everyone is afraid of being labeled as intolerant or an asshole so nobody has the courage to call out the emperor’s lack of clothes - to say this isn’t working and needs radical correction to enforce some social norms and define acceptable behavior under penalty of imprisonment, labor, or some undesirable consequence for the offender. People are thus held prisoner by the group think and the social glare. It’s only worse now with social media enabling a cancel culture with very real and significant consequences.

tolbish 5y ago
> to say this isn’t working and needs radical correction to enforce some social norms and define acceptable behavior under penalty of imprisonment, labor, or some undesirable consequence for the offender We should really be focusing on the underlying mental health issues rather than resorting to a base desire to crack skulls. One such example is opening up (humane) mental health institutions. For people who are out of their gourd but aren't your typical criminal case, these mental health institutions would exist for these people to go if they consistently prove to be a danger to themselves and/or others.
- aksss 5y ago
  Who said anything about cracking skulls? Institutionalization is simply a manner of imprisonment, but it is still in that column. State-run institutions were shut down, but interestingly the amount of "institutionalized" people in the population remained much the same, they basically just moved into the prison system, which I think is arguably worse. But yeah, I'm all for addressing mental health and being more "liberal" with institutionalization. It's better than having crazy people cursing at kids on the street, threatening violence and creating public health hazards.
- silexia 5y ago
  Cracking skulls is actually the more humane solution. If a city makes harsh examples of a few criminals, it dissuades many more potential criminals from ever getting started. Allowing criminals and homeless to run rampant will lead to the rapid increases in both we have seen in SF. Then there still will be an inevitable backlash, and that will involve the cracking of far more skulls than would have happened by doing it early. If a city never enforces its laws, the criminals will crack far more innocent skulls. You can't escape the cracking of skulls, you just choose who does the cracking and how many get hurt.