5 ms·

The knee-jerk reaction of "defund the police" to the power abuses of police officers struck me as deeply weird from the beginning. It made me wonder whether th

The knee-jerk reaction of "defund the police" to the power abuses of police officers struck me as deeply weird from the beginning. It made me wonder whether the right NOR the left had any clue left as what the role of a police force in a democracy was actually supposed to be — or whether that battle cry _really_ originated from the same forces trying to split the US society: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/14/russia-us-politics-social-media-facebook https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/14/russia-us-po... Like, there would have been lots of great claims: "Train police", "Restructure Police", "Rebuild Police"... but what's a single good argument to "Defund Police" other than wanting to go back to anarchy?

Zigurd 5y ago
"Train police", "Restructure Police", have been tried, and that has just inflated police budgets. That last one "Rebuild police" has not been tried. Many PDs need that. From the ground up. One applicant at a time. Carefully screened and lavishly trained.
rbanffy 5y ago
> there would have been lots of great claims: "Train police", "Restructure Police", "Rebuild Police"... but what's a single good argument do Defund Police other than going back to anarchy? I believe it's a reaction to police forces now having military gear when it should be totally unnecessary. In many places police officers don't even need guns. Maybe spending less money in militaria and more in training would be a consequence of not having to fund military equipment, supplies, and maintenance. It'd, at least, limit the violent options police has when they are going to engage a suspect.
- asdff 5y ago
  Oftentimes they are given this military gear for pretty much free. When is the last time you've even seen SWAT deployed that made you think "I wish they didn't deploy SWAT?"
  - r00fus 5y ago
    TANSTAAFL - who's paying for that gear? How'd it get in the police department's hands "for free"? I don't want to be SWATTED (for script kiddie's Lulz) just because the police have the equipment and need to justify usage of it.
    - pixelgeek 5y ago
      Well the US taxpayer is paying for it. It is military equipment that is transferred to police departments https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/24/pros-j24.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/24/pros-j24.html
      - rbanffy 5y ago
        A surplus that's a side effect of a bad habit of invading other countries and occupying them for decades. Kick the habit and the surplus goes away. Also, international good will increases.
    - asdff 5y ago
      Federal programs transfer this equipment to police force for free other than like shipping and ongoing maintenance(1). Easy for ARs since they already have the gun lube. Harder for the Armored Personel Carrier so that is usually found parked in front of HQ just for show like an old WWII tank. SWATTING is extremely rare and unlikely to ever happen to you or anyone you personally know. Meanwhile there's been plenty of cases that have demonstrated the need for police to have access to weaponry, like the north hollywood shootout(2). 1. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/09/why-police-pay-nothing-for-military-equipment.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/09/why-police-pay-nothing-for-m... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
      - rbanffy 5y ago
        > shipping and ongoing maintenance Get it now and pay forever. Sounds like a sweet deal to the manufacturer.
- endymi0n 5y ago
  "Unfortunately, as a reaction to our budget cuts, the department has decided today to drop all unneccessary training, public relations, proactive policing and vehicle maintenance. We hope there won't be more cuts in the future so we can afford maintaining the urban tanks and full battle gear our officers so direly need in these dangerous times." Duh. Who could possibly have foreseen that defunding would not change their attitude?
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    > defunding would not change their attitude? It's almost like a job where you get to work in military cosplay and just intimidate and sometimes kill people you don't like without facing any consequences would attract people suitable for being a police officer. When you offer sociopath-candy, you attract sociopaths.
- pixelgeek 5y ago
  It isn't a recent issue. Progressives in the US were warning about this trend in the 1980s
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    The FBI also reported a lot of police forces have been infiltrated by white supremacists. One wonders where the violence comes from...
- nostrademons 5y ago
  Also to police forces closing ranks around their own misbehaving officers, such that it's not possible to effect change within the system short of tearing down the whole system and replacing it with something else. I think that 2020s protests might've gone very differently if, after the previous 18 complaints against Chauvin for racially-motivated excessive use of force, his department had said "Yes, this is a problem. He is no longer with the force" rather than continuing to employ him until somebody died. Most police officers I know have been decent people, with some bad apples. But unfortunately the bad apples are protected and ruin the trust in the police force for everyone.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    Which is ironically the moral of the bad apples aphorism: a few bad apples spoil the bunch.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      It seems the bunch is made almost exclusively of bad apples right now.
analog31 5y ago
Since I had kids in school, I talked with people who expressed "defund the police" at the time. My observation is that it was a hasty reaction to things that people were acutely observing, such as the school police "resource" exclusively engaging with black students, sometimes violently, in one case lethally. And in fact, they had no clue what a police force or a democracy were supposed to look like.
whimsicalism 5y ago
i think knee-jerk is unfair to characterize any sort of reaction that has been brewing for decades, both the problem and proposed solutions.
noahtallen 5y ago
I think it’s a justified emotional reaction to injustice. A significant amount of the public exposure police have is extremely negative. Is it clear to anyone barely following along that police are providing value to society? Here’s a simple example. Portland, OR has had extremely high gun violence this year, like many cities. The public perception is that the police are doing a very poor job handling that, either with bringing people to justice or preventing crime. Now, just a month ago, there was a manhunt near where I live. It seemed like half the force showed up for it, and the reason was that someone allegedly shot at police. It is very difficult to take this in a positive light when it seems the police are only turning up in force when they are threatened, rather than when the public feels unsafe. I’m not trying to make a claim about what they should or shouldn’t be doing really, I’m just pointing out the severe PR problem the police have created for themselves. And it seems like they continue digging themselves into a hole. I also think this has less to do with individuals, but it’s clear that the system of policing in place just isn’t working for the community. I don’t think the community will or even has to be experts on what the system should look like. We’re just people who want to feel safe in our city! But everything about policing seems set up to primarily protect the police (qualified immunity, asset seizure, police unions, lack of accountability from top to bottom, extreme focus on violence as a solution), rather than the public. That’s very concerning. Anyways, my point is that when average people see a system that isn’t working for them, and don’t really get the “good” that the system may also be doing, of course the reaction is going to be very negative. It just makes sense. And since if you have a very negative view of a system, why would you want to deal with it at all? And there aren’t clear solutions to the problem! I’d say getting rid of qualified immunity and asset seizure (to an extent) is a start, but that probably requires constitutional changes. And that’s unlikely to get anywhere anytime soon. And police unions seem to prevent local changes as well. If the police aren’t willing to reform themselves despite the very obvious need, it’s no wonder the public is not reacting in a “constructive” way.

Zigurd 5y ago

"Train police", "Restructure Police", have been tried, and that has just inflated police budgets. That last one "Rebuild police" has not been tried. Many PDs need that. From the ground up. One applicant at a time. Carefully screened and lavishly trained.

rbanffy 5y ago

> there would have been lots of great claims: "Train police", "Restructure Police", "Rebuild Police"... but what's a single good argument do Defund Police other than going back to anarchy? I believe it's a reaction to police forces now having military gear when it should be totally unnecessary. In many places police officers don't even need guns. Maybe spending less money in militaria and more in training would be a consequence of not having to fund military equipment, supplies, and maintenance. It'd, at least, limit the violent options police has when they are going to engage a suspect.

asdff 5y ago
Oftentimes they are given this military gear for pretty much free. When is the last time you've even seen SWAT deployed that made you think "I wish they didn't deploy SWAT?"
- r00fus 5y ago
  TANSTAAFL - who's paying for that gear? How'd it get in the police department's hands "for free"? I don't want to be SWATTED (for script kiddie's Lulz) just because the police have the equipment and need to justify usage of it.
  - pixelgeek 5y ago
    Well the US taxpayer is paying for it. It is military equipment that is transferred to police departments https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/24/pros-j24.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/24/pros-j24.html
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      A surplus that's a side effect of a bad habit of invading other countries and occupying them for decades. Kick the habit and the surplus goes away. Also, international good will increases.
  - asdff 5y ago
    Federal programs transfer this equipment to police force for free other than like shipping and ongoing maintenance(1). Easy for ARs since they already have the gun lube. Harder for the Armored Personel Carrier so that is usually found parked in front of HQ just for show like an old WWII tank. SWATTING is extremely rare and unlikely to ever happen to you or anyone you personally know. Meanwhile there's been plenty of cases that have demonstrated the need for police to have access to weaponry, like the north hollywood shootout(2). 1. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/09/why-police-pay-nothing-for-military-equipment.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/09/why-police-pay-nothing-for-m... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      > shipping and ongoing maintenance Get it now and pay forever. Sounds like a sweet deal to the manufacturer.
endymi0n 5y ago
"Unfortunately, as a reaction to our budget cuts, the department has decided today to drop all unneccessary training, public relations, proactive policing and vehicle maintenance. We hope there won't be more cuts in the future so we can afford maintaining the urban tanks and full battle gear our officers so direly need in these dangerous times." Duh. Who could possibly have foreseen that defunding would not change their attitude?
- rbanffy 5y ago
  > defunding would not change their attitude? It's almost like a job where you get to work in military cosplay and just intimidate and sometimes kill people you don't like without facing any consequences would attract people suitable for being a police officer. When you offer sociopath-candy, you attract sociopaths.
pixelgeek 5y ago
It isn't a recent issue. Progressives in the US were warning about this trend in the 1980s
- rbanffy 5y ago
  The FBI also reported a lot of police forces have been infiltrated by white supremacists. One wonders where the violence comes from...
nostrademons 5y ago
Also to police forces closing ranks around their own misbehaving officers, such that it's not possible to effect change within the system short of tearing down the whole system and replacing it with something else. I think that 2020s protests might've gone very differently if, after the previous 18 complaints against Chauvin for racially-motivated excessive use of force, his department had said "Yes, this is a problem. He is no longer with the force" rather than continuing to employ him until somebody died. Most police officers I know have been decent people, with some bad apples. But unfortunately the bad apples are protected and ruin the trust in the police force for everyone.
- monocasa 5y ago
  Which is ironically the moral of the bad apples aphorism: a few bad apples spoil the bunch.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    It seems the bunch is made almost exclusively of bad apples right now.

analog31 5y ago

Since I had kids in school, I talked with people who expressed "defund the police" at the time. My observation is that it was a hasty reaction to things that people were acutely observing, such as the school police "resource" exclusively engaging with black students, sometimes violently, in one case lethally. And in fact, they had no clue what a police force or a democracy were supposed to look like.

whimsicalism 5y ago

i think knee-jerk is unfair to characterize any sort of reaction that has been brewing for decades, both the problem and proposed solutions.

noahtallen 5y ago

I think it’s a justified emotional reaction to injustice. A significant amount of the public exposure police have is extremely negative. Is it clear to anyone barely following along that police are providing value to society? Here’s a simple example. Portland, OR has had extremely high gun violence this year, like many cities. The public perception is that the police are doing a very poor job handling that, either with bringing people to justice or preventing crime. Now, just a month ago, there was a manhunt near where I live. It seemed like half the force showed up for it, and the reason was that someone allegedly shot at police. It is very difficult to take this in a positive light when it seems the police are only turning up in force when they are threatened, rather than when the public feels unsafe. I’m not trying to make a claim about what they should or shouldn’t be doing really, I’m just pointing out the severe PR problem the police have created for themselves. And it seems like they continue digging themselves into a hole. I also think this has less to do with individuals, but it’s clear that the system of policing in place just isn’t working for the community. I don’t think the community will or even has to be experts on what the system should look like. We’re just people who want to feel safe in our city! But everything about policing seems set up to primarily protect the police (qualified immunity, asset seizure, police unions, lack of accountability from top to bottom, extreme focus on violence as a solution), rather than the public. That’s very concerning. Anyways, my point is that when average people see a system that isn’t working for them, and don’t really get the “good” that the system may also be doing, of course the reaction is going to be very negative. It just makes sense. And since if you have a very negative view of a system, why would you want to deal with it at all? And there aren’t clear solutions to the problem! I’d say getting rid of qualified immunity and asset seizure (to an extent) is a start, but that probably requires constitutional changes. And that’s unlikely to get anywhere anytime soon. And police unions seem to prevent local changes as well. If the police aren’t willing to reform themselves despite the very obvious need, it’s no wonder the public is not reacting in a “constructive” way.