Tired of the "Defund the Police" label

[Joe Nation]

I know precious few Democrats that actually want to "defund the police" in this country. But none the less, this is exactly how the Right characterizes the Democrats every chance they get. It is a Right-wing tailor-made scare tactic that came along during the George Floyd pretests and they haven't let it go since. Defunding the police isn't the answer even as we witness video after video of police malfeasance across the country with few officers ever held accountable.

As a Democrat, I don't want to see the police defunded. What I want is far more civilian oversight and police accountability, and it is long overdue in my opinion. If you have any organization tasked with protecting the public and trusted with the use of deadly force, it is absurd to think that this organization should investigate itself and police its own. That is a recipe for corruption in just about any situation.

I couldn't agree more that police have a hard job. Police are being used to do work they were never trained to do. Nobody suggests that police work isn't difficult or even dangerous but when it is done with a lack of transparency, it just makes the job that much harder because you lose the trust of the public. You lose good officers that are unwilling to participate in the inevitable cover-ups, and you corrupt otherwise honest cops that go along to get along. It's a self-defeating dynamic that slides further and further into an authoritarian security nightmare.

A list of suggestions for improved community policing:

-Fund mental health personnel for domestic issues that do not need police involvement
-Extend police training from 6 weeks to one year
-Set-up civilian review boards with teeth to oversee individual police activities
-Put more cameras on the police, on their cars, and in high crime areas
-Hold officers accountable if they break the law and make them ineligible to serve anywhere if they are fired
-Embed non-police personnel with patrol officers
-Put their pensions on the line if they are found to have committed illegal acts as policemen
-Pay them more

The overall goal is oversight and accountability. Without such steps, we will only see the distance between community policing and the communities they serve grow wider.

[JCMach1]

1. There needs to be a complete rethink of what policing is

Similar to what has happened with education, politicians left and right have tended to throw policing out as an easy solution to any number of social problems.

That needs to be reversed whatever you call it.

[Thomas Hurt]

2. When the christofascists cut police budgets or attack first responder retirement packages...

they call it being fiscally responsible and smaller gov't.

[brush]

3. Good ideas. Training from 6 wks to a year is especially appealing.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. .

The overall goal is oversight and accountability. Without such steps, we will only see the distance between community policing and the communities they serve grow wider.

That's a pretty vague goal and also sounds like it comes after any violence cops might commit. Is reducing cop violence not one of your goals?

Your list of reforms are almost all things that actually expand policing and police tactics, as well.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

5. Reallocate the police is more what was intended I think. But....

it has two more syllables and "reallocate" is a bit more complicated than "defund" so it never got used. "Demilitarize" is another word that is prob more accurate.

This is just one more example of how everything in current political discourse gets reduced to two either-or polarities, and as a result the solutions to problems are never found because the solutions aren't in either of the polarities. This is a bigger problem than just the police brutality issue.

[poli-junkie]

6. Cops don't need to be paid more

They make 6-figures to start!

[Jedi Guy]

7. Not even close. The average salary for a police officer in the US is $55k per year.

That is, of course, an average, so it will vary significantly depending on experience, specialization within their particular agency, and where in the country they live.

I'm quite curious where you got the "six-figure salary" notion.

[poli-junkie]

8. My local Santa Barbara figures

[Jedi Guy]

10. Again, not even close.

A quick Google search turns up figures from salary.com (average $65k/year, with the range typically falling between $60k-$70k) and Indeed.com ($40.90/hour, which works out to $81k per year) for Santa Barbara cops.

There's significant variance between those two results, but neither comes close to your assertion that they're pulling in six-figure salaries. Either your information is wildly inaccurate, you're making incorrect assumptions, or you're talking about lieutenants, captains, or other specialized officers as opposed to patrol officers.

[poli-junkie]

15. City of SB jobs:

Scroll until you see police job offerings

https://www.google.com/search?q=city+of+santa+barbara+jobs&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#fpstate=tlexp&htiq=city%20of%20santa%20barbara%20jobs

[Jedi Guy]

17. Fair enough. I would point out, however, that the range is $90k to $110k.

The $90k is for a rookie officer fresh out of the academy, whereas the $110k is for an experienced officer transferring from another department. I further submit to you that the only reason they're making six figures is that it's Santa Barbara in particular and California in general, and thus a vastly higher cost of living than most of the rest of the country.

To clarify your argument, are you suggesting that we pay them less or keep their pay at the current rate?

[poli-junkie]

30. Require at least an AA degree

Teachers should be paid more than cops

[Jedi Guy]

35. Many departments do these days, though I agree all should.

Given the legalities involved, to say nothing of the power of life and death over fellow citizens, a two-year degree is not unreasonable.

As I said downthread, though, you get what you pay for and nothing more. Attracting and retaining quality people requires paying a quality salary.

[mopinko]

12. does your figure include ot?

police in chi get a lot of ot, and that often adds up to 6 figures.

[former9thward]

21. Chicago police quickly have a base rate of high 5 figures.

Base rate Police officer after 2 1/2 years $87,000. With even a little overtime they are at 6 figures.

http://directives.chicagopolice.org/forms/CPD-61.400.pdf

[Cuthbert Allgood]

38. I think it is usually the overtime. At least from every cop I know.

And that salary is pretty close to the average teacher salary when a very high percentage of teachers have Master's degrees. So, I don't think the salary is out of line.

[Jedi Guy]

51. I'm fine with raising teachers' salaries, too.

It's not a zero-sum game. Both do necessary work and you have to offer an attractive salary to find and retain good people.

[ck4829]

57. +1

[Jedi Guy]

9. "Embed non-police personnel with patrol officers."

I'm quite curious about this particular point. Can you expand on this suggestion and provide a bit more detail and clarity on what you mean, please?

As a (non-sworn) dispatcher, I rode along with patrol officers on occasion to see how the other half lived, as it were, and so they could tell me how to better do my job and provide better support for them. On the one hand, they tended to like having someone to chit-chat with and appreciated the effort to be better at my job. On the other hand, being responsible for a non-officer in potentially dangerous situations gave them some anxiety.

Sadly, I never did get a chance to ride along with the air unit. Still disappointed about that after all these years.

[liberal N proud]

11. It was a scare tactic that the trump Klan concocted in 2020

And several radical candidates are going to run with it going forward.

Another right wing conspiracy

[WhiskeyGrinder]

27. Oh, it regularly makes the rounds on the moderate left as a more reform-minded alternative to the

effort to abolish the police entirely, which is a movement that has been around for decades.

[uponit7771]

33. +1, dems should use Scotts tax raises as a stoke even more than GZP used Defend policing

[bucolic_frolic]

13. More training, more standards, more rules, more accountability.

What we have is a patchwork system from state to state and municipality to municipality, dependent upon funding and leaders, I think.

[Jedi Guy]

24. True. To the best of my knowledge, there are no national standards for anything.

Policing is a state or local matter, so the quality of everything (training, equipment, funding, accountability, professional standards, recruitment, mental health support, you name it) will vary considerably from state to state, county to county, city to city. There are national accreditation bodies, sure, but as far as I'm aware, there's no minimum expected standard when it comes to policing, and there really should be.

[Samrob]

14. Some keep bringing this up but i haven't heard one person say this or seen one sign anywhere in my

neighborhood. Why do some keep brining it up?

[Jedi Guy]

25. "i haven't heard one person say this"

It was, not surprisingly, closely associated with the BLM protests in 2020 and beyond, and those protests themselves were associated with the left, which naturally aligns with the Democratic Party. Many high-profile Democrats, from Biden on down, pushed back against the idea that "defund the police" was a position endorsed by the Party.

Unfortunately, some Democrats didn't get the memo to distance themselves from that toxic slogan. Rep. Cori Bush is the one who leaps immediately to mind, but I'm sure some others also fell into the trap, so here we are.

[uponit7771]

34. +1, cause it was a 2020 GZP stoke now GZP is trying to get past J6 revelations they don't have much

... to go on but to bring up old crap.

[Ferrets are Cool]

16. You know what repugs read in your post?

DEFUND THE POLICE.
It doesn't matter what you say. They will see it THEIR way.

[Celerity]

19. not just Rethugs, a shedload of Indies, Latinos, and Asians as well. All 4 groups, on balance,

hate 'Defund The Police'.

It is the progs' greatest policy cock-up by far, along with some of them falsely self-labelling as democrat socialists.

The US is a reactionary nation at heart, at least for now.

[Model35mech]

18. Unfortunately, you must live with the meme that STUCK

This is the precarious nature of memes.

The opponents apply their own interpretations.

Sometimes those stick better than the original.

It's not just "defund the police", it's also true of CRT. Republicans interpret this VERY differently than Democrats.

It turns out that memes are two-sided blades.

[Celerity]

20. Big difference with CRT though. Some Dems stupidly DID call for defunding the police with that

exact labelling. No one ever called for CRT to be taught in elementary or high schools (as it is a complex legal theory only taught in law schools and advanced uni courses, usually post grad).

The Rethugs just took an obscure label in CRT, and universalised it to anything that is anti white power and pro civil justice, and the extended it to basic history as well.

Pretty much all discussion of race is now out of bounds and ludicrously labelled CRT, other than (I assume they would fine with this) a narrative along the lines of 'oid massa treated his slaves with kindness and love, like a master and his dog, and the happy slaves rejoiced and gave thanks and danced for the goodness of white old massa' The End.

[Jedi Guy]

26. "old massa treated his slaves with kindness and love"

I've never understood this particular argument to excuse or soften slavery. Okay, sure, the law of averages implies that some slaveholders treated their slaves kindly (though I would never go so far as to say "with love" ) just as some, like Delphine LaLaurie, were sadists who horrifically abused their slaves, while others were somewhere in between.

So what? A slave treated kindly is still a slave. Sure, they're better off than a slave who belonged to the LaLauries, but at the end of the day they're still a goddamn slave. It's akin to saying, "Why are you upset? Sure, I beat the living shit out of you, but at least I didn't stab you like I did the other guy. Count your blessings."

[Celerity]

36. yeppers, it enrages me as well

[Model35mech]

29. THe point is CRTers and AntiCRTers interpret CRT VERY differently

The meme that it's a complex legal theory is NOT the one that flourishes among the Rs. And pretty much every Diversity activist well knows that. The meme is a foile that fends off the criticism

For them CRT is teaching little elementary white kids to be ashamed of their race. Many of the anti-CRTers know that's not what its about too. But the meme is a foile that fends off criticism.

[Celerity]

32. That is obvious in face value. Rethugs try to weaponise and change meanings all the time.

Look at the term liberal for instance.

CRT is one of the substantially less common times where they took a term no one was actually using in the Dem Party and turned it into a buzzsaw.

A bit of an aside about the term liberal. Almost all the rest of the world looks at the US use of the word and gets confused. Liberal in most all other nations means centre right, not left (and most certainly not far left like the Rethugs use it).

The most bizarre use is the pejorative term 'tax and spend liberal' as the mostly globally accepted (other than the US) definition of a liberal is a small government, free trader type who almost always wants lower taxes and less government.

Not to the level of a RW libertarian (RW as opposed to a LW libertarian, another political typology that so many in the US seems oblivious to) but most definitely NOT at all interchangeable with left, far left, progressive, or the even more ridiculous socialist label, democratic or otherwise.

[Precipice_dweller]

22. Personal experience

My experience was messed up, horrible, and unlikely to ever be replicated. But, I'm going to share a small portion of it because I am sick to death of people minimizing the danger presented by our uniformed police.

I was imprisoned last year under truly bizarre circumstances after having cut my own wrists and losing over half of my blood volume. I'd share more, but it is honestly a bizarre and lengthy tale and the majority of it is irrelevant in terms of the subject of this discussion. I was initially hospitalized for 3 days before being imprisoned. Medical records show my hemoglobin and hematocrit values fell to 45% of normal and I should be dead. Stage 4 hypovolemia, the point where you lose the capacity to think, you go into a coma, and you die starts at 40% blood loss. I lost 55%. You don't replace that amount of blood by staying in a hospital for 3 days.

While I was imprisoned, the police gave me reason to believe my life was over. There was a lot of taunting. Stuck in a solitary cell, I waited for a moment when I was unsupervised. When the moment came, I used my denture plate to rip open my wrist. My ex-wife's dog had gotten ahold of my denture plate a few years ago and he chewed on it for a bit. It didn't destroy the denture, but it left an edge. It wasn't blade sharp, but it was sharp enough to do some damage with enough determination.

I ripped open my wrist and spilled about a liter of blood on the cell floor. There was arterial spray, so I felt pretty confident I'd be passing in to the next world pretty soon. At that point, one of the guards wandered by and saw what was happening.

The individuals I knew to be corrupt officers cleared out the floor pretty quickly, leaving a small team to manage me. One of these brave warriors looked through the glass and asked me if I promised not to throw blood at them. Once I stated "i have no interest in harming any of you bastards, no I'm not throwing blood anywhere." they stormed the castle. Six cops charged in and high-fived each other after cuffing someone who was obviously such a dangerous threat.

They led me to a 4-point restraint chair. It wasn't a normal restraint chair, one of the cops said he hadn't seen it used in thirty years. It had a dimple in the back, one that pressed into the spine. Sitting in the chair, you could relax your body and suffer from this piece of metal digging in to your back. Or, you could move your torso away from the dimple and struggle to breathe. Breathe or pain. Pain or breathe. They put a peppered spit mask over my head and locked me in a room away from sight.

One of the medical staff told the officer in command "he could die there." The commanding officer replied "fuck him." They left me there for about 4 hours. I debated dying, but at one point whispered "water, please." When I asked for water, I think they realized they'd broken me. They took me back to a cell, locked me in solitary, and had a medical staff member pump me full of supplements to restore blood. Like iron and chromium supplements can counter that much blood loss. Idiots.

In this entire process, I had not acted to harm another human being. The act that got me thrown into this barbaric chair was harming myself.

Your suggestions are pretty. They assume we have a functioning system.

The system is NOT functioning. The people in charge are barbaric. The underlings are criminal. It's broken.

Burn these bastards where they stand and salt the earth.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

23. I am a Democrat and 100% support defunding the police.

We don't need mini-militaries. We don't need cops doing jobs for which they have zero training. We don't need to train cops to do jobs for which other people are better suited. We don't need to pay cops more. For the most part, the cops are the problem.

[Jedi Guy]

28. A few questions, if I may.

We don't need mini-militaries.

Define "mini-militaries."

We don't need cops doing jobs for which they have zero training. We don't need to train cops to do jobs for which other people are better suited.

Regarding this, I assume you mean having cops respond to calls for people who are in a mental health crisis or similar. On the whole I'm inclined to agree, as cops don't have the kind of training required to deal with situations like those. However, if the person in question is behaving violently towards others (and particularly if they are armed), I feel like an officer should at the very least accompany the mental health professional, with the understanding that they are in charge and will direct the officer if/when they need assistance.

We don't need to pay cops more.

You get what you pay for and nothing more. If your argument is that police departments aren't attracting and retaining quality people, one way to change that is to offer a higher salary and be much more selective in those who are ultimately chosen. If you want high-quality people, you have to pay them accordingly. This is true of any field.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

37. Quick responses

Define "mini-militaries."

Highly weaponized over-powered police forces.

if the person in question is behaving violently towards others (and particularly if they are armed), I feel like an officer should at the very least accompany the mental health professional

My daughter is social worker. She is trained to deal with people in crisis. She doesn't need help. Plus, there are two additional problems with a police presence. They will escalate and harm the person. That is what they are trained to do. Finally, having a cop present is going to, at best, freak the fuck out of the person in danger or, worse, cause the person to not get help because they think, rightly, they are going to get charged criminally. Any social worker I have met would 100% not want the police with them.

If your argument is that police departments aren't attracting and retaining quality people, one way to change that is to offer a higher salary and be much more selective in those who are ultimately chosen. If you want high-quality people, you have to pay them accordingly.

That is not my argument. They are attracting what they want. They want this type of person. We don't need to pay them more. They make a lot. They get to retire early. We have a LOT more important professions we can increase salaries of before we get to the police. Throwing money at this problem isn't going to fix the problem.

[Jedi Guy]

55. Hm. Well...

Highly weaponized over-powered police forces.

That doesn't really clarify it, so I'll take a stab at what I assume is your meaning here. I'm guessing you mean AR-15s in terms of weapons, and Rooks and MRAPs or Bearcats in terms of armored vehicles. It may interest you to know that a great deal of that gear is military surplus. For instance, a few years ago a southern California (or perhaps it was Florida, I don't recall) sheriff's department got a new armored vehicle and Alyssa Milano tweeted about it, bemoaning the cost. Turned out the department paid $3000 for it and got it as surplus from the government, which was cheaper than maintaining the one they had, which was several years old.

This is usually when people say, "But they don't need those things!" They certainly do, for SWAT callouts or other dangerous situations. Armored vehicles are mobile cover, which can come in very handy when dealing with a barricaded suspect who has a high-powered rifle, for instance. I think most people vastly overestimate how often these vehicles roll onto city streets. It's quite rare.

Incidentally, this is also why officers need AR-15s. So many people have them now, to the point that they're one of the most common guns in America. An officer with a sidearm going up against a suspect with an AR-15 or other long gun is, well, literally outgunned.

Any social worker I have met would 100% not want the police with them.

Fair enough. If and when a few social workers are killed by the people they're trying to help, that estimation may change. I suppose it's worth trying, and I don't doubt the cops would be glad to hand it off. They tend to hate dealing with people in crisis because they know they're not properly trained for that situation. Either way, I have no doubt most officers would be fine to go along in case things got out of hand but let the social worker lead the charge.

That is not my argument. They are attracting what they want. They want this type of person.

Speaking as someone who worked for a police department, please don't take offense when I say that you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about. The recruitment process for a dispatcher (non-sworn personnel) involved two personality test batteries, three evaluations with a psychologist, and a polygraph screening. That's not counting the actual job interviews and other competency tests. The process is even more stringent for sworn personnel in any department with half-decent funding, and that's to get hired after the academy. The simple fact is that you're never going to perfectly weed out the people who shouldn't be cops. Some will always get through.

Where many departments could do much, much better is with mental health care and evaluations after an officer is hired. Most departments in large cities (or larger, better-funded counties) have behavioral science units. Their job is to provide support for the officers and other staff. I feel every officer, regardless of how well they seem to be doing, should have an evaluation at least every six months, or more frequently if they're not coping well.

The reality is that it is a very stressful job. That stress gets to people, and they reach a point where they're essentially so stressed that they're blind to it. It's like being in chronic pain, if you've had the misfortune to experience that. You eventually become so used to the pain that you stop noticing it, or even feel strange if it lets up for a brief period. Behavioral science units need to be on top of monitoring their officers and pulling them from duty if they don't have their heads on straight.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

31. I'm a Democrat and I'd rather abolish the police. What we have now is unreformable.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

39. Word.

[Dial H For Hero]

40. Presuming they are in fact abolished, who (if anyone) would enforce laws?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

41. Who enforces them now?

There are *a lot* of crimes that go unreported, unprosecuted, unenforced and unpunished in the system we currently have. So do we throw more money at it and try close all those gaps -- thus ballooning an already bloated "criminal justice" system -- or do we reimagine what safety and justice can be?

[Dial H For Hero]

42. The system is flawed, granted. But the question remains.

Suppose (just for example) someone commits an act of murder. Presuming that the police have been abolished, by what mechanism do you propose that this person be apprehended, detained, and punished?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

43. .

An abolitionist model doesn't mean that we live in the same world we do now, only without cops. It means the resources that went towards police are redirected. We know what causes most crime, and we know what prevents most crime, which means we can fund the things that prevent most crime, including murder.

It doesn't mean murder wouldn't happen, of course. What an abolitionist model does mean is that we can reimagine what kind of response to violence we want to build. The police model we have now is based on controlling people: finding people escaping slavery, keeping rebellious workers in line, intimidating immigrants and marginalized people, which is why it's so oppressive and hurts even victims of crime. What if we built it around helping people -- helping people who have been hurt in a way that supports them and doesn't retraumatize them, helping people whose needs are so poorly met they hurt other people, and holding people accountable for their actions without dehumanizing them?

There's no easy answer to "what about murderers?" when talking about abolition, but it is a good question to examine what we have know.

[Dial H For Hero]

44. The question still remains, though.

Supposing that your abolitionist model has been enacted, murders will (as you grant) still happen.

What happens to the murderers? Not to mention those guilty of rape, assault, etc.?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

46. What happens now?

[Dial H For Hero]

48. Many of them (not enough, granted) are arrested, convicted, and imprisoned.

You seem to be avoiding answering my question directly. I'll repeat it for your convenience.

Supposing that your abolitionist model has been enacted, murders will (as you grant) still happen.

What happens to the murderers? Not to mention those guilty of rape, assault, etc.?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

50. I'm certain I'm not going to be able to give you an answer that works for you.

A simple answer to that question doesn't exist, just as it doesn't exist for the question of rapists and murderers now. All I know is that institution we have now is a racist, classist, oppressive institution that got its start chasing down people escaping slavery, suppressing worker and other civil rights protests, and harassing immigrants and protecting property, all with the goal of control and punishment. Eventually it was tasked with doing something about rapists and murderers, and it does a terrible, terrible job, preferring to focus on the easy stuff, its original purpose. As such, it's an institution that's impossible to reform, because it will always protect its original purpose. If it's impossible to reform, it should be abolished. If we accept abolition as a possibility and work toward it as a goal we expect, it gives us the opportunity to use our resources to build safer, stronger communities, without throwing money at the police.

[Dial H For Hero]

52. I'm not looking for an answer that just "works for me", but a concrete proposal.

You don’t seem to have one other than simply the abolition of law enforcement. What replaces it?

And by the way, since when is the protection of peoples property a bad thing?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

53. .

What replaces it?

Systems that meet peoples needs and prevents and mitigates harm and trauma. We know what prevents crime, and what meets people's needs: abolishing the police gives us the resources to do just that. And these systems will look differently depending on the harm that we're looking at.

Let's go back to murder. We know why people kill: out-of-control emotions (anger, frustration, jealousy) plus poor impulse control, a business deal gone wrong (whether the business is high finance or drugs), bigotry, lack of empathy, and so on. We know what causes all of these things, and because we know what causes all of these things, we can put resources into tactics that prevent them. At this point, we haven't made that kind of community building a priority. But if we set abolition as the goal, it frames our view to better prioritize prevention over reaction and punishment, even if we never get to full abolition.

And by the way, since when is the protection of peoples property a bad thing?

I should have been clearer, because I meant private property, not personal property. And it's a bad thing because then we end up with cops shooting kids for stealing Pokemon cards -- or George Floyd, for that matter.

[Dial H For Hero]

54. Still not the slightest detail.

I'm not asking for a 10K word essay, but you say that law enforcement should be replaced by some set of "systems" that will make people less likely to commit crimes. What are they?

What's more, you haven't even given a hint as to what will be done as murders, rapes, assaults, etc., continue to occur. What will be done to the people who commit such crimes?

As for protecting private property, what's wrong with that? If someone breaks into a store and robs them, how do you propose that they be caught and punished?

[tavernier]

45. I never hear it

Unless someone brings it up in here.

[bluecollar2]

47. A national policing standard needs to be established

12 week bootcamp/basic training. Mix the races/creeds/sexual preferences/citizens/legal residents/rural and urban boys and girls together.

Force them all to work together and be in close proximity with one another for twelve weeks with no outside contact.

Won't take long to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Spend those 12 weeks on a curriculum established by subject matter experts in law enforcement, ethics, and psychology.

If they make it through that they graduate and go on to state run academies for state specific training.

All law enforcement to undergo the same...sherriff,police,prison guards etc.

Annual reviews to be submitted to States and Federal agency.

Just my $.02

[ck4829]

56. Is "Defund the Police" STILL a bad idea? Especially considering what they can do with those funds?

[RANDYWILDMAN]

58. Community planning is too freakin complicated for small brains

it's not hard to have the conversation,

R's want simple easy slogan type messages, except that taxes are to complex to really fix them and something like social security is not needed cause we can't afford it and then make a lot ways for US as a country to NOT be able to afford it, even when that is a bold faced LIE