Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 137 posts

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#31

Post by KorematsuFred »

chrischen wrote: post #13
the-dude wrote: post #5

We have unarmed second tier 'enforcers' in NL ( BOA's ). They patrol some city centers, give parking tickets etc. They have been asked to enforce the 1.5m rule, encountered agression and started protesting because ... they want to be armed. ( They have called for arms before COVID ) edit: Oh, forgot to add : we have these 'enforcers', and their responsibilities have been extended, because we basically defunded the po…

Part of the problem is that America's criminals are very well armed... and that's due to America allowing people to be armed.

Criminals arm themselves no matter what. I would rather be armed than helpless in front of such criminals.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#32

Post by tick_tock_tick »

renewiltord wrote: post #17
the-dude wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am just pointing out that even unarmed civilians will be a problem.

It does not make sense to me that unarmed members of the public are more dangerous in the US than anywhere else.

Whatever the reason be it cultural, environmental, or ?? the US violent crime rate even removing all gun related incidents is still significantly high then most other first world countries.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#33

Post by twblalock »

If most people realized that protesters mean "abolish" when they say "defund", the reaction would be a bit different (see https://newrepublic.com/article/158104/rush-redefine-defund-...).

When most people hear "defund the police" they assume it means cutting police budgets, and perhaps also involves repurposing money for social services. But reforming any organization generally takes more money, not less -- for example, things like more/better/longer training for officers and better handling of citizen complaints all cost money.

Both of the generally accepted options would have bad outcomes: a society without any policing, or police departments mandated to reform without the funding necessary to succeed.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#34

Post by minikites »

root_axis wrote: post #25
trianglem wrote: post #12

I think the best thing for America would be to completely dissolve the police union. This single action should fix a lot of the issues.

Are unions really the problem? Why not raise the standards and the wages for police officers instead of dismantling labor power?

There's a reason most other labor unions don't want anything to do with cops joining. A police union is closer to a mafia family that protects its members instead of a traditional labor union.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#35

Post by jeffbee »

hpoe wrote: post #18
jeffbee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really what "defund the police" does. The police union has a toxic contract with the police department. By dissolving the counterparty of the contract, you remove it from the equation. New law enforcement agencies can start from scratch without the weight of either the contract or, initially, any of the problematic personnel.

So having seen many ground up rewrites of code I have to ask how do we make sure that when we redo the police we avoid the problems we got this time around?

Police toxicity is a path-dependent phenomenon. We got here by decades of incrementalism, where politicians, many of whom were, at the time, avowed racists, agreed to various aspects of civilian-police relations. Simply starting over today with current civilian leadership to draft a new doctrine guarantees a dramatically different outcome.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#36

Post by mkolodny »

If the goal is to prevent police brutality, it seems like it would be more effective to deal with the problem directly - punish police officers who use excessive force.

Derek Chauvin, the officer charged for murdering George Floyd, has had 18 previous complaints against him [0]. If police officers can get away with using excessive force, then they might think that it's acceptable behavior.

Reducing the police force by 20% could reduce police brutality by 20%. But you're also reducing legitimate police activity by 20%.

I'd rather see efforts focused on getting justice for victims of police brutality and excessive force.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/minneapolis-officer-compla...

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#37

Post by root_axis »

basch wrote: post #27
root_axis wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are unions really the problem? Why not raise the standards and the wages for police officers instead of dismantling labor power?

Because the unions have much more power than labor negotiations, including being able to decide what laws and policies apply to the police departments.

How is it that police unions can determine what laws apply to police departments? I've never heard of that, could you point me to where I could read up more on that?

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#38

Post by voisin »

eric_b wrote: post #24

I see a lot of people saying "Defund the police doesn't mean no police". Ok, fine. But it's a shitty slogan that, regardless of actual meaning, is doing more harm than good. Normal people don't get the nuance. To them it just sounds like the "defunders" want to get rid of all police. And normal people think that is a very fucking bad idea. Do you know what regular people do when they are worried about their safety, c…

How about “Deunionize Police”?

Doesn’t have the same ring, but would solve many of the issues people are protesting about (accountability, etc).

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#39

Post by [deleted] »

wolco wrote: post #21
ladberg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Defund the police" doesn't mean taking away all police. It just means reducing funding and reducing responsibilities of the police to avoid them becoming a catch-all for any civil issue.

What it really means is taking a public sector job and moving it to the private sector. Private police forces employed by the rich will maintain order on private property. The poor will be less protected.

[deleted]

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#40

Post by clamprecht »

eric_b wrote: post #24

I see a lot of people saying "Defund the police doesn't mean no police". Ok, fine. But it's a shitty slogan that, regardless of actual meaning, is doing more harm than good. Normal people don't get the nuance. To them it just sounds like the "defunders" want to get rid of all police. And normal people think that is a very fucking bad idea. Do you know what regular people do when they are worried about their safety, c…

But I think it's healthy that actual defunding is on the table now. The police need to be accountable. It may be a solution to the police union problem. Defund, start over without the union.
Post reply on HN