The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police • Hacker News Board

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#101

Post by mensetmanusman » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #90

mensetmanusman wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police unions are different than others in that they are the only group allowed to impose violence on other citizens. No issue with dismantling unions if it is not found to be an optimal organizational solution to minimizing harm.

I think the police's role in state sanctioned violence is a fair distinction, but is violence the only important factor? I have seen a lot of arguments against unions for e.g. harming children by protecting bad teachers; some would argue that the education of future generations underpins a large section of systematic inequality within our society, including poverty and crime, which are issues that also happen to inte…

Unions protect bad apples.

In most cases, the net harm is actually minimal, e.g. increased levels of incompetence, drinking on the job doing paper work, forcing bosses to outsource, slower delivery times, etc.

In the case of police though, harm can be quite high when bad apples are protected.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#102

Post by clamprecht » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 9:47 PM UTC

castratikron wrote: post #41

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 "descope"?

Reminds me of what my Programming Languages professor used to say, "Scope - it's not a mouthwash!"

Most people don't know what scope, or descope means in this context.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#103

Post by rstupek » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

Novukus wrote: post #72

wolco wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure why people always jump to such extremes. When I see "defunding", I see something more like Camden, where they fired all the police officers and hired non-union to form a new police department. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/nyregion/overrun-by-crime... https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crim... Seems like it was relatively successful without turning into a neoliberal hellscape.

"After Camden, New Jersey, “disbanded” its police department seven years ago, as Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor writes in From #blacklivesmatter to Black Liberation, the footprint of the police force expanded, firing 250 officers and hiring 411 new ones, along with 120 “civilian clerks.” In its first year, excessive force complaints still topped those of any other police department in the state. “Broken windows” policing escalated, with disorderly conduct summonses increasing by 43 percent."

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#104

Post by wolco » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

skannamalai wrote: post #47

wolco wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay, but in that scenario, that private police officer won't have the collective benefit of a public union. A DA won't be biting the hands that feed them if they choose to prosecute a private police officer. And the poor are dying from a death of a thousand social services cuts- diminished mental and physical health services, childcare and teen programs, etc. It's not unreasonable to assess whether local spending on…

DA are elected. Voted[in by the same people who want a powerful private police force.

I think it would go the other way and protections would be granted to these private forces when they are asked to take over public enforcement in public spaces.

They also wouldn't be bound by same standards police have now. DAs wouldn't have access to public information they have now because the information would be private. Nor would private police be forced underlaw to declose facts. That notepad that gets handed in doesn't exist nor does the body camera footage.

Don't say it can't happen because many prisons are private and much worse for the prisioner, the guards, the families. Think slave labor doesn't exist? Try earning 45 cents an hour.. in America in jail.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#105

Post by twblalock » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 9:59 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #98

twblalock wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reforming an institution always costs more money, not less.

The point isn't to save money. It's to force reform by taking away the current police department's money. (This is an excellent example of why the "defund" slogan is confusing; however, of the other suggestions I've seen in this thread, I haven't seen any that make clear the level of change that's needed.)

What do you expect to happen when you take away their ability to pay for reform?

I can think of a few things that will require more money: better/longer training for officers, and doing more investigations into citizen complaints. That stuff isn't free.

When you defund an organization and at the same time demand it does better, you create a siege mentality among the members of the organization. They will get worse, not better.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#106

Post by ghthor » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #59

twblalock wrote: post #33

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 exam…

Many police organizations have been violating rights and abusing people for decades; saying that they need more money before they fix their problem just astonishes me. Do you really think the populace will trust them to change? If someone's been violating your trust for an extended period of time, they need to earn it back before you give them anything they want.

Many federal government organizations have been violating rights and abusing people for decades; saying that they need more money before they fix their problem just astonishes me. Do you really think the populace will trust them to change?

If someone's been violating your trust for an extended period of time, they need to earn it back before you give them anything they want.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#107

Post by designdesign » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

rodiger wrote: post #30

designdesign wrote: post #20

It's absurd that it's taken this much to have a national dialogue about how problematic the "social services with a gun" approach is.

It's a hard question because many "social services" calls are violent. Do we expect a social worker to protect a child from an abusive parent? Do we send both an officer and a social worker? How do we know the people calling 911 were accurate in their description of the situation or that it won't escalate? Regardless, I agree that the dialogue is important and overdue.

Right but on the other side, how many situations escalate because now they have an armed person with a few months of training on the scene.

"Do we expect a social worker to protect a child from an abusive parent?"

This already happens a lot. Often police can't do anything substantive unless there's a crime in action or some existing record. A social worker might be the only safe long-term presence around (and availability/quality of social workers is an enormous problem). Removing children from their homes can often put them in the foster system, which is also woefully inadequate and has funding/employment issues.

If it doesn't come from defunding the police, I think the major piece to take away from this overall conversation is that Americans are in dire need of better social programs that can better treat these things before policing is needed.

At the moment we have a weak mental health system and an overbearing policing system. It's no wonder our prisons are filled, our homeless have rampant addiction issues, and people are getting shot on the street.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#108

Post by nickff » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

ghthor wrote: post #106

nickff wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many police organizations have been violating rights and abusing people for decades; saying that they need more money before they fix their problem just astonishes me. Do you really think the populace will trust them to change? If someone's been violating your trust for an extended period of time, they need to earn it back before you give them anything they want.

Many federal government organizations have been violating rights and abusing people for decades; saying that they need more money before they fix their problem just astonishes me. Do you really think the populace will trust them to change? If someone's been violating your trust for an extended period of time, they need to earn it back before you give them anything they want.

I'm not sure if this is intended as a rebuke or reductio ad absurdum, but I agree with it.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#109

Post by trianglem » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 10:15 PM UTC

cheaprentalyeti wrote: post #3

We'll get rid of the police departments and replace them all with Committees of Public Safety. It'll be really cutting edge.

Yeah with far fewer bad boys with guns. We only really need someone with guns to respond to a situation when a violent crime is in progress. There are many, many crimes that are not and there is no need for a cop with a gun to show up to all of them.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#110

Post by Novukus » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

rstupek wrote: post #103

Novukus wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why people always jump to such extremes. When I see "defunding", I see something more like Camden, where they fired all the police officers and hired non-union to form a new police department. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/nyregion/overrun-by-crime... https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crim... Seems like it was relatively successful without turning into a neoliberal hellscape.

"After Camden, New Jersey, “disbanded” its police department seven years ago, as Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor writes in From #blacklivesmatter to Black Liberation, the footprint of the police force expanded, firing 250 officers and hiring 411 new ones, along with 120 “civilian clerks.” In its first year, excessive force complaints still topped those of any other police department in the state. “Broken windows” policing es…

His book is from 2016, which I assume was referencing the 2014 high.

https://whyy.org/articles/complaints-excessive-police-force-...

> With about a month left in 2017, 15 complaints are on the books, roughly half of last year’s total.

> In 2014, the total was 65 – the highest in a state that has its share of crime-ridden cities.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-04/how-camde...

> By the department’s account, reports of excessive force complaints in Camden have dropped 95% since 2014.

I can't find many sources about the number of excessive force complaints in Camden after 2014.

Assuming the numbers are accurate, I'd say the lesson is that it isn't a magic bullet. You might end up hiring a bunch of sadistic assholes again anyway. But without a union obstructing everything you do, it does give you a lot of power over regulating conduct and implementing guidelines for how officers apply (or don't apply) force, how they handle potentially dangerous situations, how they handle people in general, whether they prefer de-escalation over seeing citizens purely as dangers to be dealt with. There's actually a chance at accountability without a union obstructing every attempt to improve behaviour. If you have somebody in charge who cares about improving the policing environment (and the appropriate political, judicial and public oversight), these seem to be very good things to me.

edit:

It deleted my last edit. Balls.

https://www.nj.com/camden/2017/08/how_njs_most_dangerous_cit...