Jump to content

Defund the Police

406W30th

By 406W30th
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

406W30th
406W30th

Our police state needs a complete overhaul – not just incremental reforms here and there. There's been lots of traction on social media about the idea of defunding the police and while it sounds a bit

Foosters
Foosters

I worked a couple years in a courthouse that served primarily a Latino area of town. All criminal fillings were misdemeanors in this particular courthouse. What I saw was a systematic war wa

Anastasis
Anastasis

Sadly, distributing tanks and humvees to local police department is a much more efficient political transaction than establishing assertive community based mental health care programs. Local police ge

Posted Images

bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13483

Posted
Posted

SF and Boston stepping up with some ideas for non-armed civil service to take over some of the jobs of current police

Updates to my previous bullet point list...

- Disband all police departments
- Keep existing budgets, but rehire based on a ratio of something like... 85% unarmed peacekeeping force / 15% armed special response.
- Heavy mental health and attitude checks/requirements on the ASR
- 2 years severance for any existing armed police who try to re-join but don't make the cut for PF or ASR (no pension)
- 6 months severance for those who do not try to re-join
- Regular education on mental health and de-escalation for the PF (money taken from weapons/arms/militarization)
- Goal of minimum 40% women on PF
- Subsidies for in-community housing for all forces
- Higher pay/better benefits-pension for PF than ASR

Let's say you've got a mid-size city of 150k with 150 cops. You'd then have 23 armed cops ready to respond. Maybe 8 on duty at any given time, another 7 or 8 on call? What is going to happen in a city of 150k that would require 8 guns at once?

On the other hand, you'd have 127 unarmed peacekeepers interacting with the community and setting a FAR more positive tone overall. People feel safer when being pulled over/approached. People feel better about seeing other people pulled over/approached.

If a neighbor is blasting music at midnight, no one has to worry about the heavies rolling in with guns and attitudes, you know some not-macho civil servant is going to come in and calmly solve some problems.

And if the school shooting starts, then the heavies can come in with their tactical bullshit.

Sounds fucking great.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
406W30th

406W30th 1111

Posted
  • Author
Posted

What percentage of time do cops sit on their ass in a Whataburger parking lot though?

 

We desperately need to be sending first responders – who are *not* violence workers – to at least 98% of police calls.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

It's probably embedded somewhere way up in the thread, but to this point above from Milwaukee ^^^, I wonder what percentage of police shootings occurred on a call that was considered non-violent as compared to violent calls?  Looks like violent calls across that good cross-section of good sized American cities is about 1.00-1.25%.  Let's say that continues across the country.  Shit, call it 1.5%.  And then tally up all the police shootings (both justified and non-justified) and figure out what percentage occurred on which type of call?  It's a violent call and the shooting is justified, that's fine, that's what the police are there to do.  But even if the shooting is justified, but the call was non-violent...could those types of losses of life be avoidable if the police didn't show up to escalate shit?  

I'm absolutely spit-balling here, but I'm guessing out of the 1000 police shootings, 100-200 took place after they responded to a violent crime call.  The rest are traffic stops, mental health checks, suspicious activity calls, Cup Foods calls, etc.  Shit that did not need to reach that level of hysteria. 

This is not a popular, or maybe proper, time to say something like this.  But the trait that worries me more than anything in police behavior is NOT racism, rage, their tactical gear, childhood angst, stereotyping, or their own emotional fragility.  Time and fucking time again, from every single police shooting in this country that we have audio/video evidence from is always teh same fucking occurrence---ESCALATION.  They come upon a situation that is not immediately lethal to neither the civilians nor the police and they amp up and up and up until they finally have the excuse to use their lethal weapons or knee-caps.  Every fucking time.  The conflicting orders are part of this, but that's an actual tactic that is taught at academies to see if the person they are dealing with is lucid/coherent/on drugs-alcohol/etc.  But they don't teach ESCALATION, in fact they teach de-escalation but really fucking poorly.  

But the officers regardless of their own race, background, education, years of service, rank, department specialty, hour of day, or their own track record of racism and brutality.  The one thing EVERY ONE of them does in non-justified shootings is the unnecessarily escalate the situation.  Not saying all cops do this, most humans are just hard-wired to calm shit or walk away.  But all cops, every single one, in unjustified shootings/knee murders elevates the situation when it doesn't need to be.  They do it in different ways but they take it up to 11

That thing your wife does in an argument with you where they just keep upping the ante and keep stirring shit up instead of just saying "Good Night"?...that's how these police conduct themselves professionally with vulnerably innocent people under the barrel of their guns.  Some 5 year old who can't see the logic in the situation and just keeps acting out on emotion and blind baby rage...they just can't calm a situation?  Now imagine they have qualified immunity from you doubting their motives and they had military grade weaponry?  And oh yeah, the only thing you had on your side is the 5 year old had to wear a bodycam that you could show to their mother to demonstrate their insane escalating behavior.  But everytime that happened, they got to throw the bodycam down the stairs, smashing it and your story into 1000 pieces?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HRSchenker

HRSchenker 2333

Posted
Posted

The one thing I can agree on "defund the police" is that we have got to stop enabling the cops who don't want to protect the community and put their desire to come home every night above their job. When I read this article I was in complete shock at how incompetent police officers can be. 8 minutes of carnage with 8 armed officers in the area and not one of them fires a single shot. They rush in 4 minutes after the last shots are fired and the shooter is hanging out at Walmart. Deputy Scot Peterson waited 5 minutes before calling a campus lockdown.

This is a great read and I encourage everyone to follow along. Journalism like this is what the world needs.

https://projects.sun-sentinel.com/2018/sfl-parkland-school-shooting-critical-moments/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31996

Posted
Posted

 

On 6/19/2020 at 9:15 PM, Bone3421 said:

Didn't check thread.....but if not posted earlier

Colorado becomes first state to end qualified immunity

Just a sidenote, but it's interesting.  The qualified immunity mostly talked about is something that precludes federal constitutional claims.  So it's a federal doctrine that applies in federal court.

All the states could end their version of qualified immunity, if they have one, and it wouldn't affect the federal version.

States are free to create torts of all kinds that apply to police and to kill immunity and damage caps for them, and make departments and cities liable for the damages.  

Plaintiffs go to federal court because most states have complete immunity to their torts for cops and other government officials, or unacceptably low damage caps.

It would probably actually be a better solution for states to do that than to rely solely on federal litigation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20888

Posted
Posted

Until the rapist is identified as a cop or bootlicker, what makes them think the rape has anything to do with the doxxing or even with the city council woman at all? 

I'm not sure I agree with your police non-armed civil service work there, Lou.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46069

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, WBT said:

Until the rapist is identified as a cop or bootlicker, what makes them think the rape has anything to do with the doxxing or even with the city council woman at all? 

I'm not sure I agree with your police non-armed civil service work there, Lou.

I'm just connecting dots here.

Quote

After breaking into her duplex, the rapist dug his elbow into the her neck, pushed her into the wall, & said, "Maybe next time you'll learn your lesson."

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13354

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, WBT said:

Until the rapist is identified as a cop or bootlicker, what makes them think the rape has anything to do with the doxxing or even with the city council woman at all? 

I'm not sure I agree with your police non-armed civil service work there, Lou.

I’m not sure I agree with your ability to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13483

Posted
Posted

I don't know if Bama's always been a Fuck 12 type, but the negative marketing cops are doing right now is beautiful. We have a group chat with some of my lib family members and a daughter-in-law said, "I can't take anymore radicalization, every time I see a police car now I wish I had a gun."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SubliminalHorn

SubliminalHorn 6996

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't know if Bama's always been a Fuck 12 type, but the negative marketing cops are doing right now is beautiful. We have a group chat with some of my lib family members and a daughter-in-law said, "I can't take anymore radicalization, every time I see a police car now I wish I had a gun."

It’s pretty incredible. Cops are acting like an abusive partner. It’s our fault because we just make them so mad sometimes and have the audacity to stand up for ourselves. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cacti

Cacti 191

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

We have a group chat with some of my lib family members and a daughter-in-law said, "I can't take anymore radicalization, every time I see a police car now I wish I had a gun."

Does the daughter-in-law live in Texas? If so, there’s nothing stopping her from getting a LTC, thus giving her the ability to have a gun on her at all times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MillerEP

MillerEP 30844

Posted
Posted

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/07/13/new-york-city-shootings-nypd-anti-crime-unit-eric-adams-tony-herbert/

In Wake Of Continued Gun Violence, Prominent Members Of Black Community Call On NYPD To Bring Back Anti-Crime Unit

July 13, 2020 at 9:15 pm

...

But the mayor did not propose any new solutions to ending the gun violence. This, as shootings for the week went up 277%, 49 compared to 13 in 2019. The number of victims is up 253%, 60 compared to 17 in 2019.

😲

Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2201

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, MillerEP said:

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/07/13/new-york-city-shootings-nypd-anti-crime-unit-eric-adams-tony-herbert/

In Wake Of Continued Gun Violence, Prominent Members Of Black Community Call On NYPD To Bring Back Anti-Crime Unit

July 13, 2020 at 9:15 pm

...

But the mayor did not propose any new solutions to ending the gun violence. This, as shootings for the week went up 277%, 49 compared to 13 in 2019. The number of victims is up 253%, 60 compared to 17 in 2019.

😲

No one here cares. Not the right message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106670

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

No one here cares. Not the right message.

Sure we do.

Is it clear that the police in numerous areas have an orchestrated strategy of NOT doing their job, so that the people will ask them to do their job?  It's fucking "abusive spouse/partner 101" bullshit.  Abusive husband stops paying the bills, or stops picking up the kids from school, or any number of other things that make the battered wife's life hell.....all while he sends her repeated "do you miss me yet?" texts.

It's the behavior of an abusive, controlling sociopath.  That you are holding it up as some great example does not make you look like you think it does.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rougarou

Rougarou 594

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Sure we do.

Is it clear that the police in numerous areas have an orchestrated strategy of NOT doing their job, so that the people will ask them to do their job?  It's fucking "abusive spouse/partner 101" bullshit.  Abusive husband stops paying the bills, or stops picking up the kids from school, or any number of other things that make the battered wife's life hell.....all while he sends her repeated "do you miss me yet?" texts.

It's the behavior of an abusive, controlling sociopath.  That you are holding it up as some great example does not make you look like you think it does.

In your analogy (and to the thread title), wouldn't it be more of someone asking-- or, rather, demanding-- that the abusive partner stop paying the bills, stop picking up kids from school and move out completely and go somewhere else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106670

Posted
Posted
Just now, Rougarou said:

In your analogy (and to the thread title), wouldn't it be more of someone asking-- or, rather, demanding-- that the abusive partner stop paying the bills, stop picking up kids from school and move out completely and go somewhere else?

Not really.  It's a demand that, first and foremost, they stop the fucking abuse.  That REALLY seems to have pissed off the police.

Then, it's a demand to restructure the relationship -- society has created a relationship where the abusive spouse is responsible for all kinds of shit that a spouse shouldn't even be responsible.  There are tasks that should be performed by other people, more qualified for the task.  It's as if I made my wife dependent on me for almost everything that needs to be done in our household: all automotive repairs, electrical re-wiring, teaching the kids, all plumbing work, etc., on top of the things I actually SHOULD do: parent our children, provide for the family, be a helpmate to my wife.  So, instead of me holding the family hostage with my mechanic/electrician/plumber role (and by the way, I don't do a great job with those -- the car is on its last legs, the wiring sparks, and the toilets all leak).....we divert some resources to other people who know how to handle those tasks....mechanics, electricians, plumbers, and teachers.  They aren't cool and awesome like dad is....but they know their shit, and get better outcomes.

Spend the money on the resources that produce the best outcomes.  Stop using the police as a one-stop shop for way too many public needs.  And stop putting them in so many positions where they are prone to commit abuse.

That REALLY pisses off the abusers.  I wonder why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Sure we do.

Is it clear that the police in numerous areas have an orchestrated strategy of NOT doing their job, so that the people will ask them to do their job?  It's fucking "abusive spouse/partner 101" bullshit.  Abusive husband stops paying the bills, or stops picking up the kids from school, or any number of other things that make the battered wife's life hell.....all while he sends her repeated "do you miss me yet?" texts.

It's the behavior of an abusive, controlling sociopath.  That you are holding it up as some great example does not make you look like you think it does.

But also, the "anti-crime unit" was redundant.  A PD in its an entirety is an anti-crime unit.  NYPD needs to bring back the community patrolling that DeBlasio promised years ago, but that the NYPD has failed to bring back because police love their cars and don't love walking around so much.

Much of the idealized past isn't necessarily desirable, but "Mayberry" style policing is still desirable and easily doable in NYC.  Yet, the only police that ever do foot patrols are traffic cops who wear the uniform, but aren't actually cops, and who do nothing but write tickets.  NYC is not a car city.  The police need to get the fuck out of their cars and walk around the neighborhood like the rest of us.

In spite of the right wing spin by people who live in bunkers in West Texas, NYC continues to be relatively safe and most people in NYC want cops around.  They simply want those cops to be part of the community again rather than an invading force.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rougarou

Rougarou 594

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Not really.  It's a demand that, first and foremost, they stop the fucking abuse.  That REALLY seems to have pissed off the police.

Then, it's a demand to restructure the relationship -- society has created a relationship where the abusive spouse is responsible for all kinds of shit that a spouse shouldn't even be responsible.  There are tasks that should be performed by other people, more qualified for the task.  It's as if I made my wife dependent on me for almost everything that needs to be done in our household: all automotive repairs, electrical re-wiring, teaching the kids, all plumbing work, etc., on top of the things I actually SHOULD do: parent our children, provide for the family, be a helpmate to my wife.  So, instead of me holding the family hostage with my mechanic/electrician/plumber role (and by the way, I don't do a great job with those -- the car is on its last legs, the wiring sparks, and the toilets all leak).....we divert some resources to other people who know how to handle those tasks....mechanics, electricians, plumbers, and teachers.  They aren't cool and awesome like dad is....but they know their shit, and get better outcomes.

Spend the money on the resources that produce the best outcomes.  Stop using the police as a one-stop shop for way too many public needs.  And stop putting them in so many positions where they are prone to commit abuse.

That REALLY pisses off the abusers.  I wonder why?

Some of what you are saying makes sense to me. I guess I'm thinking of the more radical videos/tweets I've seen where protesters were calling for a dissolution (think: ICE) of PD's. If we are saying,

"No, don't disband police, let's just take away the budget that gets them X, Y and Z (toys and militaria) but leave them with A, B and C which is the fundamental, bare-to-mid-level necessities to keep crime at a benchmark that we deem acceptable for our community" then that's a different position and one I think that would get some decent support from PoC's and people interested in living in urban city centers and mixed developments in the top 20 cityscapes in America.

I still land on the position that any meaningful defunding of police will necessarily imbalance further an already horrible imbalance of inner/mid/outer cities and ex/suburbs, with respect to wealth, violent crime rates--heck, any crime rates, school ratings, and jobs/employment. It's a simple cause-and-effect situation, it seems to me. 

Edited by Rougarou
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106670

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

If we are saying,

"No, don't disband police, let's just take away the budget that gets them X, Y and Z (toys and militaria) but leave them with A, B and C which is the fundamental, bare-to-mid-level necessities to keep crime at a benchmark that we deem acceptable for our community" then that's a different position and one I think that would get some decent support from PoC's and people interested in living in urban city centers and mixed developments in the top 20 cityscapes in America.

And that's what almost all of the "defund the police" arguments and approaches ARE saying.  Sure, there are radical voices saying "abolish all police, period," but there's not a single serious proposal out there to actually do so.  Don't be distracted by the noise from the fringe.  Pay attention to the actual policy proposals from the bulk of the movement.

We need to completely rethink how we create and dispatch resources to deal with problems.  That's just one part of the overall puzzle, but it's a big one.  Shit, think of just the huge waste of armed police resources when we send them to the scene of a break-in to spend 45 minutes writing reports and shit.  Why do we need an armed cop to do that?  That's just one example.

Let's have police perform three basic functions: 1) violent/ongoing crime interdiction (think armed response, etc.), 2) detective investigation of crimes after the fact, 3) community patrols by unarmed/lightly armed police who are an integral part of the community they patrol.  So much of the rest of what they do can be done by different types of entities and personnel.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rougarou

Rougarou 594

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And that's what almost all of the "defund the police" arguments and approaches ARE saying.  Sure, there are radical voices saying "abolish all police, period," but there's not a single serious proposal out there to actually do so.  Don't be distracted by the noise from the fringe.  Pay attention to the actual policy proposals from the bulk of the movement.

We need to completely rethink how we create and dispatch resources to deal with problems.  That's just one part of the overall puzzle, but it's a big one.  Shit, think of just the huge waste of armed police resources when we send them to the scene of a break-in to spend 45 minutes writing reports and shit.  Why do we need an armed cop to do that?  That's just one example.

Let's have police perform three basic functions: 1) violent/ongoing crime interdiction (think armed response, etc.), 2) detective investigation of crimes after the fact, 3) community patrols by unarmed/lightly armed police who are an integral part of the community they patrol.  So much of the rest of what they do can be done by different types of entities and personnel.

I think you are on to something, but I think you need options/choice (uh oh, this is starting to sound like a healthcare debate).

Have this:

Quote

Let's have police perform three basic functions: 1) violent/ongoing crime interdiction (think armed response, etc.), 2) detective investigation of crimes after the fact, 3) community patrols by unarmed/lightly armed police who are an integral part of the community they patrol.  So much of the rest of what they do can be done by different types of entities and personnel.

Be the Bronze package. (Starting hypotheticals) If you want to live in Houston/Austin/Dallas proper, then this is what you get and btw you don't pay as much for it. Like when looking at Cloud contracts, you get certain SLA's and support. This is the basic so your tolerance for crime let's say is 10%

Then have a Silver package some cities can opt into-- maybe some mid-level or up-and-coming suburbs, say Kingwood/Cedar Park/East Plano. You get more of what police look like except maybe not the SWAT tanks or something, I don't know but less than what we have now but more than the bare minimum. This is the medium so your SLA for crime is to not exceed 5%

Then do a Gold package for the cities that want to attract folks who will buy houses for such protection (scared and likely wealthy folks who want to raise their kids in the most optimized and extreme ways in centrally planned communities). You get the full militarized cops who will view outsiders to your community as threats and you pay for it, this is more or less what we have now. You get 1% crime. All percentages are hypothetical and meant as conversation starters and illustrate the skeleton of a framework, not to be taken literal or argued as gospel.

If you do this, I think on paper everyone would agree and you'd please everyone. People who don't want the military style police like we have it now, will opt to live somewhere with a basic package. Others will tell their realtors only to look at Gold packages with good school districts. First home buyers or centrists will probably land in the middle.

The problem would only be if, in a twist of irony, people who live without the best security and policing will decry it as unfair or discriminatory because they want 1% crime but can't afford it.

This also gives police officers the flexibility and options for which kind of cop they want to be, they can apply to, so you aren't painting with a broad brush. You have segmentation and classes of officers that get weighted/judged instead of what we have now which is that it's impossible to distinguish between one's cops disposition/personality/values/skills/ambitions/beliefs/ideals from another.

All percentages are hypothetical and meant as conversation starters and illustrate the skeleton of a framework, not to be taken literal or argued as gospel.

Edited by Rougarou
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106670

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Then do a Gold package for the cities that want to attract folks who will buy houses for such protection (scared, lilly white ((and wealthy)) folks who want to raise their kids in the most optimized and extreme ways in centrally planned communities). You get the full militarized cops who will view outsiders to your community as threats and you pay for it. You get 1% crime.

Yeah, that sounds awesome.  Especially when a black guy drives through that community and is shot because he didn't pull over fast enough.

If you want to live in a private, gated community, then do so.  But as for the role of armed government agents, they owe their duty to respect constitutional rights to literally all citizens (see the 14th amendment).  So, you can have the Gestapo in Bastropo playing army, but when they pull over and beat the shit out of/shoot someone driving through from Houston or Austin, it becomes a Houston and Austin problem - and thus a Texas and USA problem.

My proposal actually allows for what you're talking about.  In my nice little West Austin hood, the "armed response" team actually isn't going to need to be deployed very often.  But they will come when needed.  If another part of town is more of a hotspot (say, Rundberg), then that team is going to spend more time over there.

The biggest "crime prevention" role of police is regular community patrolling.   That would and should be done under EVERY scenario you and I are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...