Defund The Police: some feedback

[David G]

This is the sort of thing most progressives were talking about when that phrase was uttered. Shift some police funding to non-armed, hopefully more appropriate, responses. Seems to be working in Denver? Anyone have more on this?

How having health care workers handle nonviolent police calls may impact crime


For the last two years, a person acting erratically in downtown Denver has likely first encountered unarmed health care workers rather than police. That shift stems from the rollout of a program known as Support Team Assisted Response, or STAR, which sends a mental health clinician and paramedic to respond to certain 911 calls about nonviolent behavior.

The program, and others like it, aim to defuse the tensions that can arise when police officers confront civilians in distress. Critics of these experimental programs have suggested that such reduced police involvement could allow crime to flourish. Now, researchers have found that during its pilot phase, the STAR program did not appear to lead to more violent crime. And reports of minor crimes substantially decreased, the researchers conclude June 8 in Science Advances.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...3-_RmYyMIakQ2s

[John Smith]

As I've said often, dems are very bad at slogans.

[Keith Wilson]

That's an excellent idea. 'Defund the Police' is a strong candidate for the stupidest slogan of all time.

[dutchpp]

Some of the idea's are working here, especially when handling confused people, but there's always the political pressure to shift funds to hard crime measures.

[George.]

Marketing 101: emphasize the good part of what you propose.

"Defund the police" at best could be interpreted - assuming you already knew this - as a proposal to shift funds to other areas. The good part would be the other areas get more funds. The bad part would be the police gets less.

[Osborne Russell]

Marketing 101: emphasize the good part of what you propose.

"Defund the police" at best could be interpreted - assuming you already knew this - as a proposal to shift funds to other areas. The good part would be the other areas get more funds. The bad part would be the police gets less.

Yeah.

1. Why say "defund" when you mean "shift"? Why do you expect people to think you don't mean defund, when you say defund? If that's not what you mean, why are you saying it?

2. Why shift? I suggest: because defunding actually is the purpose, concealed by dishonest woke rhetoric. Shifting defunds. They'd be in favor of shifting the money over the side into the ocean, if it meant the police didn't get it.

[Paul Pless]

fart

[CWSmith]

Calling in health care workers would be a good idea, but after the police respond. Domestic calls are among the most dangerous that police respond to and we owe it to the health care workers to make sure they are safe.

[Osborne Russell]

Calling in health care workers would be a good idea, but after the police respond. Domestic calls are among the most dangerous that police respond to and we owe it to the health care workers to make sure they are safe.

Yes, but the money for the police got shifted.

[Hugh MacD]

I thought Portland was trying a version of that, David...or is that just pipe smoke?

[David W Pratt]

Given that a large part of the man hours expended by the police went towards low level drug arrests, has the legalization/decriminalization of marijuana acted to effectively increase police funding?

[Canoeyawl]

I like the idea of police funding themselves by "civil forfeiture"

https://priceonomics.com/how-police-...from-innocent/

D5C178BD-56B9-4C4D-A9C0-DFDC7E1A66C0.jpg

[David G]

I thought Portland was trying a version of that, David...or is that just pipe smoke?

Portland talked about doing something like that. But I don't think they did anything. At least not anything large. The over-reaction did get one vocal 'police accountability' city councilor pushed hard in her re-election bid with a wad of outside money.

I'll be glad if the city managed to change its governing structure soon.

Maybe you're thinking of Eugene?

[David G]

I like the idea of police funding themselves by "civil forfeiture"

https://priceonomics.com/how-police-...from-innocent/

D5C178BD-56B9-4C4D-A9C0-DFDC7E1A66C0.jpg

Nothing wrong with the idea, if done right. Unfortunately, it is too often abused.

[Canoeyawl]

Nothing wrong with the idea, if done right. Unfortunately, it is too often abused.

Relying on the police to police themselves?
They lie...

[johnw]

I like the idea of police funding themselves by "civil forfeiture"

https://priceonomics.com/how-police-...from-innocent/

D5C178BD-56B9-4C4D-A9C0-DFDC7E1A66C0.jpg

Yeah, no way that's goi8ng to lead to corruption.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...g-all-n1281629

[Osborne Russell]

Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police

Because reform won’t happen.
June 12, 2020

By Mariame Kaba

Ms. Kaba is an organizer against criminalization.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/o...nd-police.html

Enough. We can’t reform the police. The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and the police . . .

I’ve been advocating the abolition of the police for years. Regardless of your view on police power — whether you want to get rid of the police or simply to make them less violent — here’s an immediate demand we can all make: Cut the number of police in half and cut their budget in half. Fewer police officers equals fewer opportunities for them to brutalize and kill people. The idea is gaining traction in Minneapolis, Dallas, Los Angeles and other cities.

History is instructive, not because it offers us a blueprint for how to act in the present but because it can help us ask better questions for the future. So when you see a police officer pressing his knee into a black man’s neck until he dies, that’s the logical result of policing in America. When a police officer brutalizes a black person, he is doing what he sees as his job.

It's "gaining traction" and "helping us ask better questions for the future" . . . Liberal virtue signalers eat such neologistic drivel, this putrid woke jargon, with a spoon; avoiding candor, honesty, decency, and responsibility itself via argument by definition. "What it really means is . . . " Pitiful. It really means what it really means before one smothers it in silly rhetoric, and after.

[sandtown]

. . Liberal virtue signalers eat such neologistic drivel, this putrid woke jargon, with a spoon; avoiding candor, honesty, decency, and responsibility itself via argument by definition. "What it really means is . . . " .

You seem to have some difficulty in treating those with whom you disagree with a modicum of respect.

It is almost as if you share the common right wing view that liberals do not have a right to exist.

[Paul Pless]

i think osborne simply mostly struggles with nuance, both perceiving it and expressing it

[Peerie Maa]

i think osborne simply mostly struggles with nuance, both perceiving it and expressing it

"Killing is necessary" very black/white thinking. You got that right, Paul.

[David G]

Agree about the slogan. It was ill-considered from the jump.

But the main point of the article was that the we have some experience now with the approach of shifting funds to other approaches. And it shows that the disingenuous, knee-jerk arguments launched by the right wing about how shifting funds would result in a jump in crimes... was wrong. Not surprising, but good to have data to back it up.

[Keith Wilson]

Osborne, I don't think that you will get any argument that there are idiots on the left as well as on the right. I can quote silly things too. What's the point?

The fact remains that there are some things the police are currently called on to do for which they are ill-trained, ill-equipped, and ill-suited, and which because of this tend to get more violent than necessary. Yes, killing is sometimes necessary, but we should avoid it when it's not.

[Dave Wright]

Agree about the slogan. It was ill-considered from the jump.

But the main point of the article was that the we have some experience now with the approach of shifting funds to other approaches. And it shows that the disingenuous, knee-jerk arguments launched by the right wing about how shifting funds would result in a jump in crimes... was wrong. Not surprising, but good to have data to back it up.

Sure there are "disingenuous knee-jerk arguments" from the right, but your city of Portland suffered from the "defund" movement.

Property crimes up 33% over last year.
Homicides exceeding a three decade record.
934 sworn officers in 2020, 774 today. (compare to Denver, a similar sized city with 1517 officers).
Response times are measured in hours.
Potential police candidates have little interest in working for the city.

[David G]

Sure there are "disingenuous knee-jerk arguments" from the right, but your city of Portland suffered from the "defund" movement.

Property crimes up 33% over last year.
Homicides exceeding a three decade record.
934 sworn officers in 2020, 774 today. (compare to Denver, a similar sized city with 1517 officers).
Response times are measured in hours.
Potential police candidates have little interest in working for the city.

When you say, "... suffered from the "defund" movement." I have to agree... and disagree. It's a bit more complex than that. That's just one of the ways Portland has been dysfunctional, and one of the reasons the city is now considering a change in the structure of city governance. Using Portland to tease out lessons regarding the 'defund' movement will be difficult.

[stromborg]

Portland has hardly "defunded" the police.
Annual Police Bureau budget:

2016 $201 million
2018 $238 million
2022 $227 million

Slashed to bone!
https://www.portland.gov/sites/defau...get-review.pdf

[David G]

Portland has hardly "defunded" the police.
Annual Police Bureau budget:

2016 $201 million
2018 $238 million
2022 $227 million

Slashed to bone!
https://www.portland.gov/sites/defau...get-review.pdf

But there was a lot of noise, and some half-arsed efforts in that direction. Plus, there is a lot of push toward police ACCOUNTABILITY. Even more scary than defunding. As I said, there are more factors than 'defund' in play here.

[Dave Wright]

Portland has hardly "defunded" the police.
Annual Police Bureau budget:

2016 $201 million
2018 $238 million
2022 $227 million

Slashed to bone!
https://www.portland.gov/sites/defau...get-review.pdf

I don't understand what you're saying??? Perhaps you mean $227 million is a lot of money. Unfortunately, Portland requires much, much more to come back from an increasingly dysfunctional situation.

The OP mentioned Denver, and that's why I noted Denver's 1517 member police force in my response to David G. I think most authorities would assess Denver as having a reasonable and necessary police force. Two Western cities of comparable population, yet Portland has roughly half the number of officers as Denver. What budget would be required to get 1500 officers in Portland?

Your article mentions the initial reduction of 11.1 million from the 2021-2022 Portland police budget. It then goes on to say:

"Later in the budget development process, Council voted to reduce the Police Bureau’s budget byan additional $15 million and 84.0 sworn positions in order to eliminate several programs andfunding sources. These efforts reduced both revenue and position authority, as follows: Gun Violence Reduction Team; $5.4 million General Fund discretionary reduction andelimination of 38.0 sworn positions School Resource Officer Program; $1.9 million General Fund discretionary reduction andelimination of 14.0 sworn positions Special Emergency Reactions Team (SERT); $1.1 million General Fund discretionaryreduction and elimination of 8.0 sworn positions Transit Division; $4.3 million reduction in non-discretionary intergovernmental resourcesfrom TriMet and elimination of 24.0 sworn positions Recreational Cannabis Tax Allocation; $2.3 million reduction in non-discretionaryRecreational Cannabis Tax allocation supporting the Traffic DivisionOnly a portion of this $15 million reduction was to General Fund discretionary"

Rather than "defund the police," a rational approach to the problems in the USA would be increase police training, recruitment and deployment AND increase social services.. We have to spend lots more because we are becoming an increasingly disfunctional society.

[stromborg]

If I am following the bouncing ball on this, they later restored $10 of that $15 million dollars. My larger point is that while the police budget was cut, it wasn't cut very much.

David is right, there are a lot if issues at play here. Speaking for the Seattle PD officers I've talked with recently, they are thoroughly demoralized. Even if they manage to find a way past the various "probable cause" barriers to arrest somebody the other half of the judicial system simply lets the criminals go later that day. A lot of members of my department have been assaulted on duty (a class C felony here) with very little if any response by the court system. Arrested, maybe charged and still out walking the streets.

If can, find cop that lives in your neighborhood, make friends and have an honest discussion about what they see as the barriers to public safety. Almost guaranteed they won't be what the politically appointed Chief and their PIOs are saying on the news.

Police culture needs a lot of reform, I'm not denying that at all. The rest of the criminal justice system needs to step up and do it's job too. The criminals know every loophole and exactly how to exploit them.

[Osborne Russell]

i think osborne simply mostly struggles with nuance, both perceiving it and expressing it

Never was a slogan better suited to eliminating nuance.

[Tom Montgomery]

That's an excellent idea. 'Defund the Police' is a strong candidate for the stupidest slogan of all time.

^
This.

[Canoeyawl]

The police know every loophole and exactly how to exploit them.

[David G]

Never was a slogan better suited to eliminating nuance.

So - when some political neophytes get a bit over their skis with a camera in their face, and barf up a strategic PR error - you have to attempt to hold their noses in it? Cut 'em some slack. They were grass-roots activists, with no political background. And I know from personal experience how easy it is to come across poorly when people are finally paying attention, the cameras are running, and you're dazzled by the lights.

[skuthorp]

From Stromborg: "Almost guaranteed they won't be what the politically appointed Chief and their PIOs are saying on the news."and there lies the nub of your problem.

[David G]

If I am following the bouncing ball on this, they later restored $10 of that $15 million dollars. My larger point is that while the police budget was cut, it wasn't cut very much.

David is right, there are a lot if issues at play here. Speaking for the Seattle PD officers I've talked with recently, they are thoroughly demoralized. Even if they manage to find a way past the various "probable cause" barriers to arrest somebody the other half of the judicial system simply lets the criminals go later that day. A lot of members of my department have been assaulted on duty (a class C felony here) with very little if any response by the court system. Arrested, maybe charged and still out walking the streets.

If can, find cop that lives in your neighborhood, make friends and have an honest discussion about what they see as the barriers to public safety. Almost guaranteed they won't be what the politically appointed Chief and their PIOs are saying on the news.

Police culture needs a lot of reform, I'm not denying that at all. The rest of the criminal justice system needs to step up and do it's job too. The criminals know every loophole and exactly how to exploit them.

Part of it, seems to me, is that organizations/institutions have inherent survival instincts. With police allowed to garner too much power, with too little oversight, and become abusive (a dynamic driven btw by the Acton Dictum) the rest of their colleagues supported them. But then DA's offices, judges, and city councils started getting feedback that threatened their own careers and elections. Since by then they were no longer in a position to correct the problem, and maybe weren't savvy enough to suss out the root of the problem, they simply did what was easily in their grasp. They stopped playing along so enthusiastically. They protested in private. Good for them for the impulse. But, in the end, it also adds to the perversity & dysfunction.

Seen from the cop's perspective - it starts one step earlir, with corruption, and two-tier justice system. They lose faith in the system itself. And a 'thin-blue-line', MeFirst attitude prevails. Nihilism vs. 'serve and protect'. And then, when the inevitable blowback that S'berg mentions comes, they really can't trace it back to the source, and aren't inclined toward introspection or self-criticism. That only happens in a healthier organization. The longer it goes on, the more tangled the web becomes, and the harder it is for normal people to diagnose & correct.

"When there is an accumulation of money and power into fewer and fewer hands, people with the mentality of gangsters come to the fore. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- Lord Acton<Keep in mind that he's British, and a historian, and he said this in 1877. This is not the first time the pattern has played out>

[Dave Wright]

So - when some political neophytes get a bit over their skis with a camera in their face, and barf up a strategic PR error - you have to attempt to hold their noses in it? Cut 'em some slack. They were grass-roots activists, with no political background. And I know from personal experience how easy it is to come across poorly when people are finally paying attention, the cameras are running, and you're dazzled by the lights.

Neophytes? Some knowledgable people who should have known better jumped onto the "defund" movement, anticipating that it might further some of their more reasonable goals and expose some of the downsides of police policy. For example:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...it-have-merit/

Not neophytes, so they have to face the backlash music for not speaking clearly and reasonably.