This California city defunded its police force. Killings by officers soared.

[Zorro]

Twelve years ago, officials in Vallejo, Calif., reluctantly took a step that activists are now urging in cities across the country: They defunded their police department.

Unable to pay its bills after the 2008 financial crisis, Vallejo filed for bankruptcy and cut its police force nearly in half — to fewer than 80 officers, from a pre-recession high of more than 150. At the time, the working-class city of 122,000 north of San Francisco struggled with high rates of violent crime and simmering mistrust of its police department. It didn’t seem like things could get much worse.

And then they did. Far from ushering in a new era of harmony between police and the people they are sworn to protect, the budget cuts worsened tensions between the department and the community and were followed by a dramatic surge in officers’ use of deadly force. Since 2009 the police have killed 20 people, an extraordinarily high number for such a small city. In 2012 alone, officers fatally shot six suspects. Nearly a third of the city’s homicides that year were committed by law enforcement.

Vallejo’s experience offers a glimpse of what a reduced police presence on America’s streets could mean as defunding continues to gain traction. In the wake of national protests sparked by the death of George Floyd, city officials from New York to Los Angeles are talking seriously about far-reaching cuts to their police forces.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/this-california-city-defunded-its-police-force-killings-by-officers-soared/2020/06/22/253eeddc-b198-11ea-856d-5054296735e5_story.html

[efhmc]

1. Interesting article.

[Me.]

2. I'm Not Sure What The Article Is Saying

If you defund the police, they will kill more citizens so it shouldn't be defunded?

[Igel]

14. It's actually saying something similar to the Camden story.

Camden's lauded for defunding the police, busting the union, and starting over. The result was a decrease in crime. They say all the correct things and leave out the incorrect information.

They also reduced LEO pay enough that they could put more a lot more officers on the street. More LEO meant less crime.


Vallejo defunded and reduced officers on the street. The assumption is that had the money gone to social services there'd have been no problem. What's known is that they reduced the number of officers on the street and crime increased. Fewer LEO meant more crime.

[Merlot]

3. Vallejo defunded because they were bankrupt, they did't re-fund social services

The idea behind defunding is that the funds go to to other areas like mental health and social services. Did Vallejo have any money to fund more social services?

[dpibel]

4. Yup. Looks like wilful misunderstanding.

The writer obviously hasn't been paying enough attention to understand that "defund the police" (which, as has been much pointed out, is less-than-stellar labeling) means more than "shut down the police department." The reallocation of funds to people and agencies better-suited to dealing with matters like mental-health issues or neighbor disputes is the key to the whole thing.

[Alacritous Crier]

5. Correct.

This is some lame attempt at spin. They are talking about something completely different.

A sophomoric and feeble argument at best.

[stillcool]

6. apples and oranges..but typical.

I went bankrupt years ago..lost my house, but didn't kill anyone, and still made the same amount of money. Weird. If I'd been smart, I would have defunded some of my activities and used that money to pay off my bills.

[Throck]

7. To a limit police departments are not overfunded.

They have a priority problem. They buy toys and gizmos instead of quality training.

NARCAN was one of the first smart expenditures I've seen police departments do in years.

We need fewer police which, but the tradeoff should be the hiring of better qualified, better educated at the expense of paying them more.

[Blues Heron]

8. They need to be disarmed not defunded

disarmed so they CAN'T shoot anybody. I f a gun is needed, call in the specially trained and drug-tested special gun squad - no steroids or coke allowed. Daily drug tests for those boys.

[marie999]

10. If the police don't have guns,

they will not respond to any crime. The specially trained will be too few to answer most calls.

[Blues Heron]

11. then they can quit

we need brave people, not little gun cowards

[marie999]

12. And what will that solve?

We need better-trained police, but there are too many bad people with guns in this country to expect the police will go unarmed. How many of the specially trained police would you have on a police force as a percentage of all the police?

[Blues Heron]

13. 99 percent of cop calls don't need a gun

It's not some hell hole out there, it's just.. citizens. The guns actually make things way way worse. No regular cop should have a gun at all.

[marie999]

15. In 2016 there were 10,662,252 arrests made in the US.

5% were for violent offenses, which is 533,000 arrests for violent crimes. If the police did not carry guns, do you think violent crimes would go up, go down, or stay the same? Do you think that arrests for violent crimes would go up, go down, or stay the same?

[Blues Heron]

16. things would be very similar, but fewer dead people.

there's no earthly reason every cop needs a gun. It's the old "if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. " problem.

Think how long it took cops to stop high speed pursuits(where that's the policy) was there then a huge crime wave? no, of course not. Guns are similar.

[marie999]

18. Without guns, who would have stopped the 533,000 violent offenders?

Also stopping kids joyriding or stolen cars are, I am assuming, are not the same as armed robbery or murder. I have made my position clear so I do not see any reason to continue answering any more of your posts on this subject.

[NickB79]

19. 400 million guns in the US

Call me a coward, but no way I'd become a cop without the ability to carry a weapon with those stats.

I doubt you'd find more than a handful of people willing to take on that job, even with a 6-figure salary.

[Blues Heron]

20. Disagree, plenty would do it. The gun fear is over rated.

Steroidal cowards need not apply.

[NickB79]

21. Would you?

[marble falls]

9. So the option is paying off the cops to not kill people.

[procon]

17. They missed the point entirely.

It's not about firing half the police force to meet budget shortfalls as this scenario describes. It's about disbanding the use of military gear and tactics, retraining, removing bad cops, limiting the use of lethal and non lethal weapons with a focus on not escalating a shouting match into a violent conflict.

The police need to modernize and work with the established methods that are demonstrably effective in today's society, not launch chemical weapons and engage in brutal attacks on unarmed people. Citizens are not the enemy.

The police must start creating a more responsive and effective police force that works side by side with the communities they serve, and partner with professional agencies like counselors, medical, social services and religious leaders. There is nothing gained in the use of armored and weaponized assault vehicles set against people chanting and holding protest signs.