"Defunding" or "disbanding" police departments: Revisiting and redefining the role of policing in society

[schlumpy]

12 hours ago, Ellener said:

I wasn't joking when I said the first thing I did was give someone a pair of socks, or a good meal. 

Empathy is key to building bridges.

Our experiences in life differ Ellener. I once bought a homeless guy a sandwich and he threw it in the trash right in front of me. I was young at the time and he probably treated me with the respect he felt I was due. It's true it's just one incident over the years of many but it was one that stands out in my memory. In my opinion there has to be an understanding between two people before empathy can be built. There has to be some respect or realization of where each person is in life. Perhaps there is a "female" component to empathy that I assuredly lack.

Empathy is much easier to achieve during a disaster when needs are obvious. 

[elaine567]

I have heard the some homeless people are inundated with more sandwiches than they know what to do with. Their homeless friends are in the same boat and who is going to buy or accept sandwiches from a homeless guy?  But it was pretty rude to bin it in front of you.
I have also heard that some would rather a person sat down and spoke to them as a human being, than lob a sandwich in their direction.
But I can see why people do not want to get too closely involved, as it could be dangerous.

[schlumpy]

26 minutes ago, elaine567 said:

I have heard the some homeless people are inundated with more sandwiches than they know what to do with. Their homeless friends are in the same boat and who is going to buy or accept sandwiches from a homeless guy?  But it was pretty rude to bin it in front of you.
I have also heard that some would rather a person sat down and spoke to them as a human being, than lob a sandwich in their direction.
But I can see why people do not want to get too closely involved, as it could be dangerous.

You are most likely right. From his point of view he was just being practical. This happened when I was in college and tempered my "save the world" enthusiasm. As a cash strapped college student it was not an insignificant act on my part. As I noted in my above post he and I were in different places in life. That does not tend promote understanding.

My wife about ten years ago, had a similar turning point where she got taken in by a young women begging money for bus fare to get back home to her loving family. She caught the same young women running her scam on others and stepped in shut it down.

Although I found her story entertaining and amusing especially with the smoke coming out of her ears as she retold it, I had to make her promise never to do that again. As you noted it's just too dangerous.

[Redhead14]

7 hours ago, ironpony said:

Well why are we talking about defunding police departments, when it's not going to happen.  The government is not going to give into such a demand, cause they don't want to be seen as weak of course, so why are we talking about it, when it's not going to happen?

It could very well happen.  There are a number of cities who defunded/disbanded their police departments in the past -- Camden, New Jersey, Compton, California and Minneapolis has been discussing this possibility for some time prior to the George Floyd "incident".  The idea is not that far out.  I doubt very much it would be a widespread effort though until the success of the programs that are implemented becomes real and measurable. 

Read back in this thread for an explanation about what defunding/disbanding actually means.  It doesn't make the police less powerful or weak.  It makes the force a little smaller, but more focused and more highly trained to handle the more serious of crimes and free them up from having to act as social workers and using manpower hours and funds to deal with petty crimes, etc.  The money that is 'saved" is funneled into other programs that would handle those kinds of things instead.  There are a couple of other ways it could go too but not all bad.

I do see some possible issues arising out of it in some areas or under some circumstances so it needs to be well thought out and monitored accordingly. 

[Ellener]

8 hours ago, ironpony said:

Well why are we talking about defunding police departments, when it's not going to happen.  The government is not going to give into such a demand, cause they don't want to be seen as weak of course, so why are we talking about it, when it's not going to happen?

whatever the people 'demand' is what happens in a democracy!

These are the film maker's times. Did you give up on that?

Our DA has dropped charges against all the protestors who were cited for non-violent misdemeanor offences: "The only people I will be prosecuting are those who intentionally hurt others and intentionally destroy property." The lawyers are working for the cases to be expunged from public record.

 

[mark clemson]

"Defund" for I think most people who seem serious AND reasonably well-thought-out about it wouldn't mean completely defund and/or eliminate. It would mean a restructuring to make policing less confrontational, presumably with more restrictive authorization for use of force.

I think the use of the term "defund" is intended to create a bit more respect into them for the will of the people of the communities they are intended to serve. Something that appears to be lacking in some (but certainly not all) areas.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I don't see a likely situation where use of force is curtailed entirely (how could that happen when you're dealing with criminals?) But perhaps it's relegated to specialist task forces rather then the regular beat cops. If a true use of deadly force is likely to be required, perhaps they monitor and then call it in to specialist teams who deal with that. This is already practiced, e.g. with SWAT, but could become more of a regular approach with non-compliant citizens. If done well, this could (at least in theory) have a lot of fringe benefits, with reduced lawsuits and reduced need for beat officers to be placed on admin leave being among them.

[Redhead14]

39 minutes ago, enigma32 said:

I see people using Camden, NJ as an example of defunding the police. Camden now has more police than they did before. That is how they lowered their crime rate. So, by defunding the police, do you really wanna follow their example and hire more cops or no?

That is true.  However, they've had pretty good success and they have focused more on community outreach and interaction and garnering a spirit of community.  There are other defunding/disbanding models and each city needs to evaluate what would work best for them.  Defunding also and, more typically means, having a smaller force consisting of more focused and highly trained officers to deal with the more serious crimes and diverting the rest of the usual funding to other services and systems that free them up from acting as social workers and chasing petty criminals, etc. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Redhead14

[Redhead14]

10 minutes ago, enigma32 said:

Except that by defunding, the primary example being used is Camden, NJ, and they GREW their police force, they did not shrink it. So using them as an example of defunding the police is misleading at best. 

Technically, Camden disbanded it's police force.  But in the end disbanding and defunding are basically the same thing.  The intent is not necessarily about reducing the number of officers, it's about changing their role in the community and re-allocating funds to other services that help the community and foster good relations.  Neither disbanding nor defunding is about eliminating police.  It's about "remodeling and renovating".  There are rural towns who completely disbanded and eliminated their police force and then negotiated contracts with the county or even state for their enforcement needs. 

Camden is enjoying a significant reduction in crime and the police sponsor barbeques, dances for youth, and various other activities to help young people have a better relationship with the police as they grow up.  They know each other. 

This model may not be good for other cities.  That needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Redhead14

[Redhead14]

Just now, enigma32 said:

Camden disbanded their police force and then rehired more police than they had before. That is where their reduction in crime came form. 

That is what I just said above . . .   They disbanded their force because of high corruption in the department.  Then they rebuilt it, retrained, re-directed and remodeled the force.  Disbanding does not mean no police or even a smaller police department and neither does defunding.  They technically defunded it as well and then allocated the funds in different ways. 

[Redhead14]

39 minutes ago, enigma32 said:

That's why I keep correcting you. Saying Camden defunded their police is misleading, period. Defunding is not the same as getting rid of all your police and hiring a ton more than you had before. You can't hold them up as a shining example of what defunding your police can do for a city when Candem saw a reduction in crime after they hired more police than they had before. If you want to root out corruption and break up unions, then say that, but saying defunding and then using poor examples is just plain wrong. 

Also, there was a time when Democrats were the party of the unions. They wanna break up the police unions now? That's a lot of people gonna vote Red. 

They both defunded and disbanded their force.  And, disbanding doesn't specifically mean more cops or busting a union.  It just happens to be the model that Camden followed.  They could have disbanded and rebuilt the force with fewer officers as well.  They happened to have dismantled their force, and then contracted with the county for enforcement who in turn rehired the cops and added some.  In most cases, disbanding means, dismantling the force and putting something else in it's place.  Not all disbanding models happen the way Camden did it.  Defunding and disbanding mean basically the same thing in terms of intent.

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Redhead14

[Piddy]

What will be interesting is if Mitch McConnell will allow a vote banning choke holds.  Seems like a no brainer.  Many municipalities already ban choke holds. 

Also, banning no knock warrants for drug cases seems like a good idea in light of the killing of Breonna Taylor.  These changes don't require any defunding,  just some common sense in light of recent events.

Also, the call for 'law and order' is for many a euphemism for police brutality like we saw decades ago with Bull Conner (commissioner of public safety in Birmingham Alabama and George Wallace Governor of Alabama in the 1960's during the civil rights movement).

  Google those two names and educate yourself on what 'law and order' looked like.

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Piddy

[Piddy]

9 hours ago, enigma32 said:

Except that by defunding, the primary example being used is Camden, NJ, and they GREW their police force, they did not shrink it. So using them as an example of defunding the police is misleading at best. 

No, it's a very good example actually.  They let everyone go and rehired with the 'sanctity of life' as their motto for the new police department along with training with community out reach as a priority.  The whole mindset changed. 

Educate yourself in what they actually did.  What's misleading is the term 'defunding'  Need to retire that term.  Reform or reallocate are better terms to use.  Then alarmists can't use it as a scare tactic to the uninformed.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Piddy

[Piddy]

8 hours ago, enigma32 said:

I did educate myself on what they did. The cost per officer in Camden was too high, thus allowing them to only hire so many officers. They did away with their police force, and then started anew, thus reducing their operating costs per officer. This allowed them to hire more police than they ever had, thus contributing to their much lower crime rate. If you honestly think that hanging a banner with a new motto had more to do with the lower crime rate than having more police did, then I am afraid I cannot help you. 

Where did I mention crime rate?  🙄  Yeah, I believe in mission statements, along with a code of conduct.  I like the sanctity of life motto for police.  Along with getting to know the community with an outreach initiative.  All good in my book. 

Not good in your book I assume?  Preserving the status quo ain't working too well.  That's what the protests are all about. 🥴  So, if that's what you're advocating (status quo) then I guess I can't help you. 😉

Getting rid of the us versus them warrior attitude and replacing it with a sanctity of life / get to know the community attitude seems to be a no brainer.  

Edited June 12, 2020 by Piddy

[Ellener]

1 hour ago, Piddy said:

Preserving the status quo ain't working too well.

“At root, they fail to appreciate that the basic nature of the law and the police, since its earliest origins, is to be a tool for managing inequality and maintaining the status quo. Police reforms that fail to directly address this reality are doomed to reproduce it.”
~Alex Vitale, The End of Policing, 2017

In commenting on his work he said

“There is no magic switch to turn off and boom there’s no police department. People are trying to figure out what kind of society would be possible that doesn’t rely on police and prisons to solve its problems, and that’s a long-term political vision that is important to this movement. But if you look at what people are doing on the ground, it’s taking money for gang enforcement and spending it on after-school programs and youth counselors. It’s about going to budget hearings and lobbying city council members and holding town hall meetings in neighborhood centers.”

David Brown, former Dallas Police Chief, says a large number ( 25 % ) of police shootings are in response to mental health crises, and helped devise a Dallas policing method of sending one paramedic, one behavioral health specialist and one specially-trained officer to 911 calls that would have otherwise been handled by regular patrol officers, with a behavioural health specialist working with dispatch to help identify mental health issues. 

 

[preraph]

This video is 5 years old. There's one cuss word in it, advance warning for the faint of heart. I think it pretty much says it all. Certainly nothing much has changed in 5 years. 

 

[Paul]

Greetings!

This conversation surrounds the notion of redefining the role of law enforcement and policing, amplified most recently by global protests.

For the purpose of this discussion, and in the context in which it began, it's clear that this conversation is not about the speculative effects of a world without any policing or law enforcement, yet rather a discussion surrounding the removal of existing police departments to be replaced by either another overlapping jurisdiction or a newly hired force, and/or a considered look at the allocation of funding and the roles assigned to those people who are acting in a law enforcement capacity.

Best,
Paul

[preraph]

People are worried defunding will reduce the number of law enforcement officers on the streets. Look what these polled truckers had to say.

"Truckers wouldn't deliver to cities that defund police - poll."

https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/truckers-wouldnt-deliver-to-cities-that-defund-police-poll/

CDL news is the original source for that which is linked in this article for more details.

NY Post cited source: https://cdllife.com/2020/truck-drivers-say-they-wont-deliver-to-cities-with-defunded-police-departments/

Edited June 19, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Added link to primary source

[Ellener]

Here are the US police reforms as proposed so far https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53083560

[gaius]

All the aggressive policing and harsh sentencing that we've had going on over the last few decades was a response to a real problem that we don't really admit to anymore. That we have an exceptional amount of violence and dysfunction that goes on in this country. A lot more than our European counterparts.

There was a nationally publicized murder of a black lives matters activist this week in my city by a man who was out on bail. But what the headlines didn't focus on was that he also kidnapped and murdered a 75 year old female AARP volunteer while she was out visiting someone near one of the neighborhoods I was talking about walking through last week. She was close to the type of social worker BLM is proposing take over a lot of policing. Mostly female, unarmed, not really capable of defending themselves all that well. 

It just seems like a really dumb idea if you sit and think about it for 5 minutes.

Edited June 19, 2020 by gaius

[Ellener]

10 hours ago, gaius said:

Mostly female, unarmed, not really capable of defending themselves all that well.

I did this work for ten years for the Probation Service in England, no problems at all regarding my own safety except at one point to cut costs/cut corners the service decided I should work alone in the building. I said no, thats not professional- both for me or the clients if I turn out to abuse my power in the situation. 

If I'm doing my job right I don't need to 'defend myself' physically, it's a mistake to think we can just forcibly overpower others in these situations, there's always way more citizens than officers and we can't lock up or shoot them all...

[lana-banana]

America incarcerates a staggering number of people because it's a for-profit industry. For-profit prisons, for-profit bail bonds, counties with quotas...locking people up is a multibillion-dollar industry, even if you don't technically go to a for-profit prison (the existence of which should be a human rights violation, honestly). Nobody would go to jail for possession of weed if someone wasn't getting extremely rich in the process. The school-to-prison pipeline is real and it's horrifying. 

America is not really any more or less violent than any other country---a lot of the shootings are simply about access to guns, and barring that access we probably wouldn't be too different from anywhere else. Pointing to dramatic and sensational crimes is useless because guess what? The police aren't stopping those crimes now! There is always going to be a tiny sliver of senseless and disgusting crime everywhere, but those crimes are solved by boring detective work behind computers, not guys brandishing guns. Jeffrey Dahmer is a great example of how the police not only failed to resolve but actually enabled his appalling murders.

I live in a city and a neighborhood that has been around since the turn of the 20th century. My area has its fair share of crime but my particular block is considered a "safe zone" - why? Because of three families who have lived on that street since the 1950s. There are now two old ladies and one old man who sit out on their porches and watch everyone's comings and goings like a hawk. They know everyone in the area and everyone's children. I trade jam and stories with the ladies, my husband helps clean the church lot on weekends, we all pick up trash and say hi. We look out for each other and give each other heads up about anything happening. Simply knowing the people you live with, and extending charity to people you don't, goes a long way.

I personally see no need for an armed officer to respond to the following:

• Drug overdose --- someone under the influence does NOT need to be thinking about law enforcement!
• Break-in --- if you come home and your TV stolen, what is a guy with a gun going to do about it? Detectives and investigators should not be part of armed police.
• Speeding or traffic offenses --- just write a ticket and go already.
• Loud music next door --- get librarians to scowl at you and slap you with a noise ordinance if it comes to that.
• Mental health crisis --- you really think guns will help someone hearing voices?

The only time I would feel better with an armed agent of the state is if someone is posing an immediate threat to my life, right now. Otherwise I would much rather trust someone who is a highly trained expert in that particular field, versus call up a police officer who's somehow supposed to be an expert in everything despite vastly inadequate training.

[sothereiwas]

1 hour ago, lana-banana said:

America is not really any more or less violent than any other country---a lot of the shootings are simply about access to guns, and barring that access we probably wouldn't be too different from anywhere else.

Do the guns drive up our non-gun violence rate as well?

[That's a not-so-subtle way of me saying the facts don't support this assertion]

[TheStickisback]

8 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

Do the guns drive up our non-gun violence rate as well?

[That's a not-so-subtle way of me saying the facts don't support this assertion]

Actually if you do the reseach the most violent cities have strict gun laws

[gaius]

My city has 6x the murder rate of London and it's not even the most violent city in Florida. It's not just about one high profile murder. It's about the fact that it's common and not hard to find someone affected by it. One of my instructors when I went back to school a year ago broke down in class because his niece had been found the day before stuffed in a trunk outside Chuck e cheese of all places. And neither her or the two women I mentioned earlier were killed by a gun I don't think.

Sending unarmed women out late at night in bad neighborhoods to deal with mentally ill and drugged out people is the worst idea I've heard in a long time. And I've heard some real stinkers.

[sothereiwas]

5 minutes ago, TheStickisback said:

Actually if you do the reseach the most violent cities have strict gun laws

The correlation is clear, the causal link is much less so.