12 ms·

Sorry to say but who ever decided that the phrase "defund the police" is good or smart made a huge mistake. Or they may have deliberately picked a phrase that w

Sorry to say but who ever decided that the phrase "defund the police" is good or smart made a huge mistake. Or they may have deliberately picked a phrase that would upset and confuse a large number of people. It has split the political discord right down the middle and you will never get proper reform. The phrase that should have been used is "reform the police" because it would get almost every one aboard even the police themselves. Nothing is perfect in this world and almost every one can think of a way to improve something. This decade of attempt to reform the police most people didn't know or care about. This new movement could have brought it to light and get something done that everyone can agree on. Instead it turned into a left vs right shit show.

KittenInABox 5y ago
(Disclaimer: I don't fully agree with the position but I felt it there is context collapse[0] happening that I want to push back against because I think context collapse is deeply poisonous to intelligent conversation.) My understanding is "defund the police" is actually within the context that efforts to reform policing as an institution in america have broadly failed, so the only solution to try and make less-shitty police is to burn the institution to the ground and rebuild anew. In that context, "defund the police" makes total sense from the perspective of an activist who is agitating for a better system of community safety. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_collapse
mschuster91 5y ago
The problem is, "reform" is an extremely vague term that can be stretched from "rebuild completely" to "issue receipts to every subject of a police stop so that PoC can prove discrimination". "Defund"/"Abolish" are crystal clear in their meaning.
- sschueller 5y ago
  But who wants to abolish the police? People these days read only headlines and you can not get people to vote for your movement when the title reads "abolish the police" and a few paragraphs down it says that you aren't for no police but a new police that is better etc.
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    Minneapolis city council members were absolutely on board with abolishing the police department. They tried to get the police department removed entirely from the city charter, replaced with a "safety" department that could optionally hire police staff, if they felt it was necessary. They have since backed off (and several were voted out of office). They also used "abolish" and "defund" interchangably, because defunding and abolishing the police department was the goal. Edit: I also just noticed several comments in this thread explicitely calling for abolishing as the commenters believe reform is impossible.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    Literally an HN commenter a few comments up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30014287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30014287 and the NYT running pieces like: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol... People need to stop with this gaslighting "No one ever meant abolish, it was always about lessening funding." It's not true and only hurts your cause when you don't acknowledge there are actual significant views more radical than your leanings.
    - sschueller 5y ago
      OK but you can not remove/abolish something before you show/prove/build an alternative to take it's place.
      - mschuster91 5y ago
        Of course you can. With the despicable state some police departments are in, completely disbanding them without replacement would be the better alternative.
s17n 5y ago
They had been trying to "reform" the Minneapolis police (where George Floyd was killed) for years, but the police union had successfully blocked even the most moderate changes. There are similar stories everywhere. "Defund the police" is a good slogan because it makes it clear that you have to pick a side - the police have made it clear that "reform" is not going to be possible through cooperation. This isn't to say that there aren't plenty of individual officers who would support, or at least not obstruct, reform, but without destroying the existing institutions (police unions, primarily) that perpetuate the status quo, and disempowering the individuals who are committed to it, nothing is going to change.
- sschueller 5y ago
  People who don't live in areas of police corruption don't know this and will "vote" for the other side because they don't know what is meant with defund the police.
  - tunesmith 5y ago
    Right, because the intended meaning is different than what the words literally say.
    - a_shovel 5y ago
      Defund means "withdraw funding for", not "withdraw all funding for".
      - tunesmith 5y ago
        That is literally incorrect. You can google "defund" and the first definition is "prevent from continuing to receive funds". And it's common usage, as well - anytime a government passes a bill to "defund" a bill or a department, it means they are basically without money.
        a_shovel 5y ago
yeetaccount4 5y ago
Saying something measured and reasonable doesn’t get anyone talking at all. Creating a contentious debate gets you press. In reality, the single issue should have been around qualified immunity. Get rid of that and the ducks will fall into line.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  Wouldn't this result in increased polarization? For one side it would have the literal meaning and for the other it would have the sanewashed figurative meaning.
- tehwebguy 5y ago
  There are essentially 3 ways to get rid of qualified immunity: 1. constitutional amendment (3/4 of the states) 2. supreme court entirely throws it out (5 supreme court justices) 3. prosecutors (DAs, AGs & US Attorneys) chip away at it bit by bit When a case comes before the supreme court they can essentially create a new set of circumstances that will no longer be qualified going forward. The problem with even making slow, incremental progress is that most prosecutors just don't seem to ever prosecute cops.
  - thereddaikon 5y ago
    The problem is that you cannot expect an organization to effectively police itself. That's just a simple fact of life. Organizations will protect their own and refuse to admit wrongdoing until they are forced to by outside means. This is human nature. Prosecutors can't prosecute cops because they are part of the same system. The only way you hold the justice system accountable for miscarriage of justice is to have a completely separate body act as the check. Might as well extend that to the other branches as well. Create a 4th branch of government who's only purpose and power is to jail members of the other branches who break the law since they can't be expected to police themselves and power corrupts all. Kind of like how members of the military are subject to UCMJ courts. Civilian members of government should be subject to a court as well.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    States can choose to make their personnel subject to lawsuits in defined circumstances. Colorado, Connecticut, and New Mexico have done it --- e.g. https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/george-floyd-death/colorados-progressive-governor-and-legislature-just-ended-qualified-immunity-for-police-officers/ https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/geor...
Forgeties79 5y ago
>it would get almost everyone on aboard even the police themselves
- sschueller 5y ago
  I think at this point you need a national change and force new regulations down from the top. But the movement has turned into a left vs right issue and there will be no change from this government stalemate.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
tehwebguy 5y ago
> The phrase that should have been used is "reform the police" because it would get almost every one aboard even the police themselves. Yeah, that's the problem with "reform", it is so meaningless that the very police that need to be reformed are all for it! This is not a system that can be fixed, a ludicrous percentage, maybe as high as 95%, of current police will need to find a new line of work for policing to be fixed in the US.
- moate 5y ago
  "Reform the police" Okay, we gave them hundreds of millions of dollars for body cams! body cam footage not available, officer turned off prior to incident For a pretty solid breakdown on why it's not likely to ever expect the cops to get on the side of checks notes taking funding and job security away from themselves: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-minneapolis-kroll.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-minneapo...
  - mixedCase 5y ago
    > officer turned off prior to incident > it's not likely to ever expect the cops to get on the side of checks notes taking funding and job security away from themselves Then align the incentives. Harsher penalties for turning them off/disabling them/tampering with their wear protocol in any way. Weave into the salary a financial bonus for long periods of time without incidents. And since this is HN: Add some AI bullshit that reviews the tapes to make sure the cameras are not being covered or whatever with a secondary manual review by an outside entity to rule out false positives, make sure every police officer is aware of the automated review, and even if that system doesn't work perfectly I'm sure even a shitty government contractor can make it made good enough to put enough fear into enough corrupt cops so that camera shutdowns don't become routine.
    - moate 5y ago
      I'm just going to go ahead and say that police unions wield outsized political power, which is why people who own the "abolish/defund the police" slogan think "reform" isn't enough. The reforms may get passed (or we might have another, more "important" political cause that sucks momentum away) but if the cops themselves are hostile to the reforms, they have plenty of ways to pull the teeth out of the regulations, or just get them overturned/taken out of the next CBA. Police "unions" are exceedingly well-funded, well-networked groups that can apply a TON of political and electoral pressure. They also provide (very good/expensive) lawyers for any cop found guilty of an infraction. On top of that, the very act of prosecuting cops is essentially biting the hand that feeds you for a DA/AG. The cops will always opposing things that make the job of being a cop harder. The same way a software developer does. You can't make the incentives align if the people who currently are police are the people you feel should not, under any circumstances, be the ones in charge of public safety. The number of low-grade thugs in the US police forces is pretty apparent when you look at the domestic violence numbers.1 Either abusive people are self-selecting into being cops, or being a cop makes you abusive. TL;dr- You want "reform" because you think there's inherent value created by the current system, and I don't because I think the value is an byproduct and not the goal. 1-https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/07/20/do-40-of-police-families-experience-domestic-violence/ https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/07/20/do-40-of-police-...
dls2016 5y ago
> Sorry to say but who ever decided that the phrase "defund the police" is good or smart made a huge mistake. Yet we're here talking about it, repeating the phrase. So I disagree.
- peterangular 5y ago
  Exactly how I feel - any softer language would be forgotten and swept aside. I've heard the "police reform" drum being banged on my entire life with little to no effect - I don't blame them for trying a new slogan that cuts deeper.
  - datavirtue 5y ago
    The middle class, the main power center in America, rarely interfaces with the police. When they do the police are very nice and polite to them and provide a sense of safety, help, and support. They are viewed as super heros. The lower classes are not treated like this in any way, shape, or form. My family spent many years being targeted and harassed by local small town police in various jurisdictions. Driving a car that is more than ten years old is a great way to attract police attention. Driving a new F-150, they just smile and at you and hollar "Nice truck!". It did cause me to get very aquianted with my civil rights though. At the end we were pretty good at thwarting the harassment using a variety of methods to assert our rights. When I was 18 I ran over two brothers on purpose and skipped town. They were on drugs and beating someone in my passenger seat to death. Their sister blocked the front of my car so I threw it in reverse and floored the gas. They were inside the passenger door that was open, sweeping them under the car (a Ford Thunderbird). Anyway, when the police caught up with me at work the officer saw that I was a clean cut white boy with a new car and decided on the spot that I had already been punished enough (after confirming I was there to buy/sell drugs). My car door was wasted. He just chuckled and left after mentioning the brothers were still in the hospital in really bad condition. I thought for sure I was going to prison. I have more stories like this.
    - alsetmusic 5y ago
      > The middle class, the main power center in America… I’ve got a bridge to sell you. The power in America is at the very top with wealth and favors. The middle class has no real say in anything. I’m pretty sure most people would agree that they have no pull with their congress people after voting. But ultra wealthy people sure do. Edit: I left out corporations and lobbyists.
geofft 5y ago
The phrase I would use, myself, is "abolish the police". "Defund the police" also adequately captures my view: "reform the police" does not. I do not want "proper reform." There is clearly a need for some governmental mechanism for public safety: it's also clear that the police, as we know it are the wrong starting point, and if at all the existence of the police prevents crime, it's by coincidence. (I also have no problem being partisan about my political views. They're political views! If you could get everyone of every political view to agree on something, it's probably ineffective. Standing up for specific strong viewpoints is a good thing.)
stadium 5y ago
When I hear the phrase, to me it's more about shifting resources from punishment based (policing), to community development in historically underserved minority communities. The effects of redlining mean we still have many highly racially segregated cities. It's directly acknowledging and confronting that history, which is uncomfortable for a lot of white people. One can support both public safety and community development, and it's win-win if helping raise people up out of poverty reduces the need for police presence.
- autoexec 5y ago
  > When I hear the phrase, to me it's more about shifting resources from punishment based (policing), to community development Nothing in the phrase "defund the police" says anything about any of that. It is the goal, but the slogan doesn't reflect that anywhere in any way. When you hear it, you think about the intended meaning, while the vast majority hears only what it actually says which is "remove funding from the police" and no one wants that. Conservatives are fearful people and those against police reform took the opportunity handed to them and reinforced that very message: "If you let these liberals have their way they will make it impossible for police to protect you by defunding them". It's too bad because lots of people who would support reforms to police want nothing to do with any effort under the "defund the police" banner. No one wants a police force that doesn't have any funds.
  - stadium 5y ago
    > while the vast majority hears only what it actually says which is "remove funding from the police" and no one wants that. The vast majority of white people? It's okay to be angry about state executions at the hands of police, and about the legacy of slavery. The wording reflects that anger. If it makes white people uncomfortable that's their problem. (This is coming from a white person who does not self-identify as "liberal")
myself248 5y ago
I've long suspected that the "defund" moniker was maliciously attached by the other side, as a way of shaping the narrative. "Rebuild" or "reform" would sound entirely too reasonable. If you just repeat the inflammatory term loud enough and often enough, it becomes the de facto name for something even if it's almost entirely wrong. And then you spend the rest of your career tearing down the strawman that you built. It's very profitable.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  No, "defund the police" was the literal phrase used by activist proponents. It was not a perjorative used to describe the effort by "the other side".
- labster 5y ago
  The thing is, for most police reform activists, defunding the police is the key method by which reform takes place. I agree it’s bad branding, but it’s pretty obvious we won’t see substantial police reform unless we defund them. More police is not always the answer to more crime, sometimes it makes more sense to fund other civil services instead.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The thing is, for most police reform activists, defunding the police is the key method by which reform takes place “Defund” advocates distinguish themselves from “reform” advocates because they see the police reform movement as having made the problem worse by sucking money out of other local services into police budgets in the name of supporting reforms (leading to police role expansion as there are fewer other tools to handle local issues.) They literally see “police reform” as a major source of current problems, not the solution. (They can accurately be described as local government reform activists, but the central specific reform they support is reducing the resources and role of the local centralized paramilitary law enforcement entities, and distributing both resources and responsibilities elsewhere.)
  - mixedCase 5y ago
    > sometimes it makes more sense to fund other civil services instead Such as? The US invests an absurd amount of money into education and a sizable amount on welfare. Both of which also seemingly suffer from efficiency issues. Reform is really the only option when money stops being efficient. Over time, systems accumulate crusts of leeches who live off the system offering little in return, stealing resources from others who are more honest, by merely knowing what the weaknesses of the system are. It's at that point where reviewing and heavily reforming your rules until these people are screaming bloody murder becomes the only fix.
krapp 5y ago
"Defund the police" was born out of the anger within the Black activist community post the events of the George Floyd shooting. It wasn't something that was run through a PR firm and focus group tested, it was very much a primal scream of "fuck the system and burn it to the ground" against the establishment in its entirety. Obviously, it became problematic once it was assimilated by the very machine it was raging against, but it was never meant to be palatable to the mainstream or politically correct.
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  I think you've articulated what the problems are -- that people are speaking out of anger, not carefully and thoughtfully. Classical activists like Rosa Parks, MLK, and Frederick Douglass were careful, articulate, and thoughtful -- and they had far more of a positive influence because of it. That's not to say that we should close our ears to people's political expressions, but advocating untenable policy never achieves much good, no matter how much feeling is behind it. We have to move beyond the primal screams and feelings toward thoughtful, articulate, actionable policy that makes good sense and has a net effect of building up society into something good instead of merely tearing it down. It's much harder and more important to build well than to tear down. This is where good education becomes an absolute necessity. Instead of lowering standards and making school easier, we should focus on making it more accessible while keeping standards high. We need articulate, thoughtful, well-read people if we are to achieve a better society; I'm not talking about STEM -- while it's important, STEM helps people do, not think. How many of these modern activists have read Milton, Locke, Hegel, Descartes, or Aristotle? So I see these problems (people talking about "tearing it all down") as primarily a symptom of a lack of good education.
  - alphabettsy 5y ago
    > Classical activists like Rosa Parks, MLK, and Frederick Douglass were careful, articulate, and thoughtful -- and they had far more of a positive influence because of it. If we’re being honest about history it’s because these are the people that some choose to celebrate and elevate. They are certainly worthy of praise and remembrance, but especially with regards to the civil rights movement it was not all of even mostly pretty. Even then some people choose to ignore words from the “articulate” people mentioned that make them feel uncomfortable. I think it’s pretty rich to deny good education and then complain when the neglected don’t speak in the preferred manner. There are plenty of educated and articulate people who have been making the same point for years and nobody listened.
acid__ 5y ago
The phrase is ubiquitous not in spite of its controversial nature, but rather _because of_ it. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage...
- helen___keller 5y ago
  This is definitely one of the less-fun emergent phenomena of the internet and social media. Personally this is why I believe in building better social media bubbles, as much as most people disagree with the concept of a social media bubble I think it’s the only way to stay sane
openasocket 5y ago
Good lord yes. The second I heard the phrase "defund the police" I immediately had a vision of the conservative attack ads: Open on an elderly woman, sitting quietly at home knitting. Suddenly we hear a window smash, and we see a burgler, in a ski mask and everything, attacking her window with an axe. She lets out a scream and runs for her landline. She dials 911, breathing heavily, and says "Hello, I need help-". But an automated voice on the other line cuts her off "we're sorry, due to recent funding changes, the operating hours of emergency services has been reduced. To leave a message, please stay on the line". As the voice drones on, we zoom in on the phone, hear a muffled scream, and the phone drops dramatically onto the floor. Fade to black, brought to you my Americans for a more American America. ... I mean seriously, the attack ad writes itself. I would honestly donate money every month to a nonprofit who's sole job was to find progressive activists, and run whatever shit they are saying through a focus group. I'm in favor of police reform and everything those activists are saying, but they need to get their shit together.
nanomonkey 5y ago
I wish the slogan "demilitarize the police" was used instead. Police should be thought of as peace officers, not a civilian policing militia.
will4274 5y ago
The phrase I would have used is "pass the Obama police reforms." "Reform the police" is perhaps too vague - reform means different things to different people and status quo keepers are often celebrated as "reformers". On the other hand, Obama wrote a list of seven explicit reforms that police departments should make. They really aren't that controversial. And, Obama was going through a popularity surge (as Trump was going through an unpopularity surge). I think such a slogan would have captured a solid 60-70% of the electorate, which the current "defund" rhetoric hovers around the high 30s.
AyyWS 5y ago
It's a bad slogan if it requires a 5 minute explanation when introducing the concept.
AussieWog93 5y ago
>Sorry to say but who ever decided that the phrase "defund the police" is good or smart made a huge mistake. Or they may have deliberately picked a phrase that would upset and confuse a large number of people. I believe it was Black Lives Matter (an organisation whose name is literally a divisive statement) that coined that phrase, or at least popularised it. To be honest with you, if you look at their actions, I'm not sure if the goal is to actually end police violence/abuse of power. If that did happen, all of these influential activists would suddenly be out of a "job".

KittenInABox 5y ago

(Disclaimer: I don't fully agree with the position but I felt it there is context collapse[0] happening that I want to push back against because I think context collapse is deeply poisonous to intelligent conversation.) My understanding is "defund the police" is actually within the context that efforts to reform policing as an institution in america have broadly failed, so the only solution to try and make less-shitty police is to burn the institution to the ground and rebuild anew. In that context, "defund the police" makes total sense from the perspective of an activist who is agitating for a better system of community safety. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_collapse

mschuster91 5y ago

The problem is, "reform" is an extremely vague term that can be stretched from "rebuild completely" to "issue receipts to every subject of a police stop so that PoC can prove discrimination". "Defund"/"Abolish" are crystal clear in their meaning.

sschueller 5y ago
But who wants to abolish the police? People these days read only headlines and you can not get people to vote for your movement when the title reads "abolish the police" and a few paragraphs down it says that you aren't for no police but a new police that is better etc.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  Minneapolis city council members were absolutely on board with abolishing the police department. They tried to get the police department removed entirely from the city charter, replaced with a "safety" department that could optionally hire police staff, if they felt it was necessary. They have since backed off (and several were voted out of office). They also used "abolish" and "defund" interchangably, because defunding and abolishing the police department was the goal. Edit: I also just noticed several comments in this thread explicitely calling for abolishing as the commenters believe reform is impossible.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  Literally an HN commenter a few comments up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30014287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30014287 and the NYT running pieces like: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol... People need to stop with this gaslighting "No one ever meant abolish, it was always about lessening funding." It's not true and only hurts your cause when you don't acknowledge there are actual significant views more radical than your leanings.
  - sschueller 5y ago
    OK but you can not remove/abolish something before you show/prove/build an alternative to take it's place.
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      Of course you can. With the despicable state some police departments are in, completely disbanding them without replacement would be the better alternative.

s17n 5y ago

They had been trying to "reform" the Minneapolis police (where George Floyd was killed) for years, but the police union had successfully blocked even the most moderate changes. There are similar stories everywhere. "Defund the police" is a good slogan because it makes it clear that you have to pick a side - the police have made it clear that "reform" is not going to be possible through cooperation. This isn't to say that there aren't plenty of individual officers who would support, or at least not obstruct, reform, but without destroying the existing institutions (police unions, primarily) that perpetuate the status quo, and disempowering the individuals who are committed to it, nothing is going to change.

sschueller 5y ago
People who don't live in areas of police corruption don't know this and will "vote" for the other side because they don't know what is meant with defund the police.
- tunesmith 5y ago
  Right, because the intended meaning is different than what the words literally say.
  - a_shovel 5y ago
    Defund means "withdraw funding for", not "withdraw all funding for".
    - tunesmith 5y ago
      That is literally incorrect. You can google "defund" and the first definition is "prevent from continuing to receive funds". And it's common usage, as well - anytime a government passes a bill to "defund" a bill or a department, it means they are basically without money.
      - a_shovel 5y ago

yeetaccount4 5y ago

Saying something measured and reasonable doesn’t get anyone talking at all. Creating a contentious debate gets you press. In reality, the single issue should have been around qualified immunity. Get rid of that and the ducks will fall into line.

cuteboy19 5y ago
Wouldn't this result in increased polarization? For one side it would have the literal meaning and for the other it would have the sanewashed figurative meaning.
tehwebguy 5y ago
There are essentially 3 ways to get rid of qualified immunity: 1. constitutional amendment (3/4 of the states) 2. supreme court entirely throws it out (5 supreme court justices) 3. prosecutors (DAs, AGs & US Attorneys) chip away at it bit by bit When a case comes before the supreme court they can essentially create a new set of circumstances that will no longer be qualified going forward. The problem with even making slow, incremental progress is that most prosecutors just don't seem to ever prosecute cops.
- thereddaikon 5y ago
  The problem is that you cannot expect an organization to effectively police itself. That's just a simple fact of life. Organizations will protect their own and refuse to admit wrongdoing until they are forced to by outside means. This is human nature. Prosecutors can't prosecute cops because they are part of the same system. The only way you hold the justice system accountable for miscarriage of justice is to have a completely separate body act as the check. Might as well extend that to the other branches as well. Create a 4th branch of government who's only purpose and power is to jail members of the other branches who break the law since they can't be expected to police themselves and power corrupts all. Kind of like how members of the military are subject to UCMJ courts. Civilian members of government should be subject to a court as well.
- mlyle 5y ago
  States can choose to make their personnel subject to lawsuits in defined circumstances. Colorado, Connecticut, and New Mexico have done it --- e.g. https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/george-floyd-death/colorados-progressive-governor-and-legislature-just-ended-qualified-immunity-for-police-officers/ https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/geor...

Forgeties79 5y ago

>it would get almost everyone on aboard even the police themselves

sschueller 5y ago
I think at this point you need a national change and force new regulations down from the top. But the movement has turned into a left vs right issue and there will be no change from this government stalemate.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

tehwebguy 5y ago

> The phrase that should have been used is "reform the police" because it would get almost every one aboard even the police themselves. Yeah, that's the problem with "reform", it is so meaningless that the very police that need to be reformed are all for it! This is not a system that can be fixed, a ludicrous percentage, maybe as high as 95%, of current police will need to find a new line of work for policing to be fixed in the US.

moate 5y ago
"Reform the police" Okay, we gave them hundreds of millions of dollars for body cams! body cam footage not available, officer turned off prior to incident For a pretty solid breakdown on why it's not likely to ever expect the cops to get on the side of checks notes taking funding and job security away from themselves: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-minneapolis-kroll.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-minneapo...
- mixedCase 5y ago
  > officer turned off prior to incident > it's not likely to ever expect the cops to get on the side of checks notes taking funding and job security away from themselves Then align the incentives. Harsher penalties for turning them off/disabling them/tampering with their wear protocol in any way. Weave into the salary a financial bonus for long periods of time without incidents. And since this is HN: Add some AI bullshit that reviews the tapes to make sure the cameras are not being covered or whatever with a secondary manual review by an outside entity to rule out false positives, make sure every police officer is aware of the automated review, and even if that system doesn't work perfectly I'm sure even a shitty government contractor can make it made good enough to put enough fear into enough corrupt cops so that camera shutdowns don't become routine.
  - moate 5y ago
    I'm just going to go ahead and say that police unions wield outsized political power, which is why people who own the "abolish/defund the police" slogan think "reform" isn't enough. The reforms may get passed (or we might have another, more "important" political cause that sucks momentum away) but if the cops themselves are hostile to the reforms, they have plenty of ways to pull the teeth out of the regulations, or just get them overturned/taken out of the next CBA. Police "unions" are exceedingly well-funded, well-networked groups that can apply a TON of political and electoral pressure. They also provide (very good/expensive) lawyers for any cop found guilty of an infraction. On top of that, the very act of prosecuting cops is essentially biting the hand that feeds you for a DA/AG. The cops will always opposing things that make the job of being a cop harder. The same way a software developer does. You can't make the incentives align if the people who currently are police are the people you feel should not, under any circumstances, be the ones in charge of public safety. The number of low-grade thugs in the US police forces is pretty apparent when you look at the domestic violence numbers.1 Either abusive people are self-selecting into being cops, or being a cop makes you abusive. TL;dr- You want "reform" because you think there's inherent value created by the current system, and I don't because I think the value is an byproduct and not the goal. 1-https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/07/20/do-40-of-police-families-experience-domestic-violence/ https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/07/20/do-40-of-police-...

dls2016 5y ago

> Sorry to say but who ever decided that the phrase "defund the police" is good or smart made a huge mistake. Yet we're here talking about it, repeating the phrase. So I disagree.

peterangular 5y ago
Exactly how I feel - any softer language would be forgotten and swept aside. I've heard the "police reform" drum being banged on my entire life with little to no effect - I don't blame them for trying a new slogan that cuts deeper.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  The middle class, the main power center in America, rarely interfaces with the police. When they do the police are very nice and polite to them and provide a sense of safety, help, and support. They are viewed as super heros. The lower classes are not treated like this in any way, shape, or form. My family spent many years being targeted and harassed by local small town police in various jurisdictions. Driving a car that is more than ten years old is a great way to attract police attention. Driving a new F-150, they just smile and at you and hollar "Nice truck!". It did cause me to get very aquianted with my civil rights though. At the end we were pretty good at thwarting the harassment using a variety of methods to assert our rights. When I was 18 I ran over two brothers on purpose and skipped town. They were on drugs and beating someone in my passenger seat to death. Their sister blocked the front of my car so I threw it in reverse and floored the gas. They were inside the passenger door that was open, sweeping them under the car (a Ford Thunderbird). Anyway, when the police caught up with me at work the officer saw that I was a clean cut white boy with a new car and decided on the spot that I had already been punished enough (after confirming I was there to buy/sell drugs). My car door was wasted. He just chuckled and left after mentioning the brothers were still in the hospital in really bad condition. I thought for sure I was going to prison. I have more stories like this.
  - alsetmusic 5y ago
    > The middle class, the main power center in America… I’ve got a bridge to sell you. The power in America is at the very top with wealth and favors. The middle class has no real say in anything. I’m pretty sure most people would agree that they have no pull with their congress people after voting. But ultra wealthy people sure do. Edit: I left out corporations and lobbyists.

geofft 5y ago

The phrase I would use, myself, is "abolish the police". "Defund the police" also adequately captures my view: "reform the police" does not. I do not want "proper reform." There is clearly a need for some governmental mechanism for public safety: it's also clear that the police, as we know it are the wrong starting point, and if at all the existence of the police prevents crime, it's by coincidence. (I also have no problem being partisan about my political views. They're political views! If you could get everyone of every political view to agree on something, it's probably ineffective. Standing up for specific strong viewpoints is a good thing.)

stadium 5y ago

When I hear the phrase, to me it's more about shifting resources from punishment based (policing), to community development in historically underserved minority communities. The effects of redlining mean we still have many highly racially segregated cities. It's directly acknowledging and confronting that history, which is uncomfortable for a lot of white people. One can support both public safety and community development, and it's win-win if helping raise people up out of poverty reduces the need for police presence.

autoexec 5y ago
> When I hear the phrase, to me it's more about shifting resources from punishment based (policing), to community development Nothing in the phrase "defund the police" says anything about any of that. It is the goal, but the slogan doesn't reflect that anywhere in any way. When you hear it, you think about the intended meaning, while the vast majority hears only what it actually says which is "remove funding from the police" and no one wants that. Conservatives are fearful people and those against police reform took the opportunity handed to them and reinforced that very message: "If you let these liberals have their way they will make it impossible for police to protect you by defunding them". It's too bad because lots of people who would support reforms to police want nothing to do with any effort under the "defund the police" banner. No one wants a police force that doesn't have any funds.
- stadium 5y ago
  > while the vast majority hears only what it actually says which is "remove funding from the police" and no one wants that. The vast majority of white people? It's okay to be angry about state executions at the hands of police, and about the legacy of slavery. The wording reflects that anger. If it makes white people uncomfortable that's their problem. (This is coming from a white person who does not self-identify as "liberal")

myself248 5y ago

I've long suspected that the "defund" moniker was maliciously attached by the other side, as a way of shaping the narrative. "Rebuild" or "reform" would sound entirely too reasonable. If you just repeat the inflammatory term loud enough and often enough, it becomes the de facto name for something even if it's almost entirely wrong. And then you spend the rest of your career tearing down the strawman that you built. It's very profitable.

throwawayboise 5y ago
No, "defund the police" was the literal phrase used by activist proponents. It was not a perjorative used to describe the effort by "the other side".
labster 5y ago
The thing is, for most police reform activists, defunding the police is the key method by which reform takes place. I agree it’s bad branding, but it’s pretty obvious we won’t see substantial police reform unless we defund them. More police is not always the answer to more crime, sometimes it makes more sense to fund other civil services instead.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The thing is, for most police reform activists, defunding the police is the key method by which reform takes place “Defund” advocates distinguish themselves from “reform” advocates because they see the police reform movement as having made the problem worse by sucking money out of other local services into police budgets in the name of supporting reforms (leading to police role expansion as there are fewer other tools to handle local issues.) They literally see “police reform” as a major source of current problems, not the solution. (They can accurately be described as local government reform activists, but the central specific reform they support is reducing the resources and role of the local centralized paramilitary law enforcement entities, and distributing both resources and responsibilities elsewhere.)
- mixedCase 5y ago
  > sometimes it makes more sense to fund other civil services instead Such as? The US invests an absurd amount of money into education and a sizable amount on welfare. Both of which also seemingly suffer from efficiency issues. Reform is really the only option when money stops being efficient. Over time, systems accumulate crusts of leeches who live off the system offering little in return, stealing resources from others who are more honest, by merely knowing what the weaknesses of the system are. It's at that point where reviewing and heavily reforming your rules until these people are screaming bloody murder becomes the only fix.

krapp 5y ago

"Defund the police" was born out of the anger within the Black activist community post the events of the George Floyd shooting. It wasn't something that was run through a PR firm and focus group tested, it was very much a primal scream of "fuck the system and burn it to the ground" against the establishment in its entirety. Obviously, it became problematic once it was assimilated by the very machine it was raging against, but it was never meant to be palatable to the mainstream or politically correct.

TimTheTinker 5y ago
I think you've articulated what the problems are -- that people are speaking out of anger, not carefully and thoughtfully. Classical activists like Rosa Parks, MLK, and Frederick Douglass were careful, articulate, and thoughtful -- and they had far more of a positive influence because of it. That's not to say that we should close our ears to people's political expressions, but advocating untenable policy never achieves much good, no matter how much feeling is behind it. We have to move beyond the primal screams and feelings toward thoughtful, articulate, actionable policy that makes good sense and has a net effect of building up society into something good instead of merely tearing it down. It's much harder and more important to build well than to tear down. This is where good education becomes an absolute necessity. Instead of lowering standards and making school easier, we should focus on making it more accessible while keeping standards high. We need articulate, thoughtful, well-read people if we are to achieve a better society; I'm not talking about STEM -- while it's important, STEM helps people do, not think. How many of these modern activists have read Milton, Locke, Hegel, Descartes, or Aristotle? So I see these problems (people talking about "tearing it all down") as primarily a symptom of a lack of good education.
- alphabettsy 5y ago
  > Classical activists like Rosa Parks, MLK, and Frederick Douglass were careful, articulate, and thoughtful -- and they had far more of a positive influence because of it. If we’re being honest about history it’s because these are the people that some choose to celebrate and elevate. They are certainly worthy of praise and remembrance, but especially with regards to the civil rights movement it was not all of even mostly pretty. Even then some people choose to ignore words from the “articulate” people mentioned that make them feel uncomfortable. I think it’s pretty rich to deny good education and then complain when the neglected don’t speak in the preferred manner. There are plenty of educated and articulate people who have been making the same point for years and nobody listened.

acid__ 5y ago

The phrase is ubiquitous not in spite of its controversial nature, but rather _because of_ it. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage...

helen___keller 5y ago
This is definitely one of the less-fun emergent phenomena of the internet and social media. Personally this is why I believe in building better social media bubbles, as much as most people disagree with the concept of a social media bubble I think it’s the only way to stay sane

openasocket 5y ago

Good lord yes. The second I heard the phrase "defund the police" I immediately had a vision of the conservative attack ads: Open on an elderly woman, sitting quietly at home knitting. Suddenly we hear a window smash, and we see a burgler, in a ski mask and everything, attacking her window with an axe. She lets out a scream and runs for her landline. She dials 911, breathing heavily, and says "Hello, I need help-". But an automated voice on the other line cuts her off "we're sorry, due to recent funding changes, the operating hours of emergency services has been reduced. To leave a message, please stay on the line". As the voice drones on, we zoom in on the phone, hear a muffled scream, and the phone drops dramatically onto the floor. Fade to black, brought to you my Americans for a more American America. ... I mean seriously, the attack ad writes itself. I would honestly donate money every month to a nonprofit who's sole job was to find progressive activists, and run whatever shit they are saying through a focus group. I'm in favor of police reform and everything those activists are saying, but they need to get their shit together.

nanomonkey 5y ago

I wish the slogan "demilitarize the police" was used instead. Police should be thought of as peace officers, not a civilian policing militia.

will4274 5y ago

The phrase I would have used is "pass the Obama police reforms." "Reform the police" is perhaps too vague - reform means different things to different people and status quo keepers are often celebrated as "reformers". On the other hand, Obama wrote a list of seven explicit reforms that police departments should make. They really aren't that controversial. And, Obama was going through a popularity surge (as Trump was going through an unpopularity surge). I think such a slogan would have captured a solid 60-70% of the electorate, which the current "defund" rhetoric hovers around the high 30s.

AyyWS 5y ago

It's a bad slogan if it requires a 5 minute explanation when introducing the concept.

AussieWog93 5y ago

>Sorry to say but who ever decided that the phrase "defund the police" is good or smart made a huge mistake. Or they may have deliberately picked a phrase that would upset and confuse a large number of people. I believe it was Black Lives Matter (an organisation whose name is literally a divisive statement) that coined that phrase, or at least popularised it. To be honest with you, if you look at their actions, I'm not sure if the goal is to actually end police violence/abuse of power. If that did happen, all of these influential activists would suddenly be out of a "job".