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

121–130 of 137 posts

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#121

Post by gremlinsinc »

awillen wrote: post #56
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…

I agree that to a lot of people, defund seems to imply abolish, which is not a great position. On the one hand, I think the word choice is somewhat purposeful, as it's designed to sound extreme and appeal to people who see the police as an extreme problem. On the other hand, it definitely lends itself to purposeful misrepresentation by opponents. That said, I think given the popularity of the movement, the phrasing d…

Abolish has it's merits, assuming they replace it after abolishing. Abolish is more.... tear down and rebuild back up something similar but re-imagined... maybe following the Swedish model.

But, really the police system is so draconian, might we not be better w/out it than we are now? I mean have you seen the videos of mayhem at the hands of the police, it's hard to think of them at all in a positive light. I mean, did Germany keep the S.S.

Cops are literally murdering, abusing, and going rogue - and may actually be fully infiltrated by purpose by white power extremists.

Some of the cops responsible for Eric Garner dying, actually wore t-shirts saying "I Can Breath" for fuck sake. Mayhem would be better than police inciting of mayhem. All the rioting, looting, etc didn't happen in a vacuum the COPS CAUSED IT by their corrupt actions.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#122

Post by gremlinsinc »

wdr1 wrote: post #116
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…

I worry it's a shitty slogan that will undercut real change. Many will think it's no police, hence no police brutality, only to learn it's really just a re-organization of the police. Potentially a minor one, as many (most?) haven't shared details. Cynically, it seems an effort to take away attention from real reform, such as eliminating qualified immunity or banning police unions.

If huge swaths are pushing for defunding, wouldn't this spur the more conservative dems/gop to say oh shit, half measures aren't going to work, if we DONT reform, we're gonna get abolishment or more riots?

I mean seriously, this is a watershed moment in history unlike we've ever seen before and might ever see again. Real reform may come by getting strong on 'defund', and instead we end police unions...

Abolitionism may be just ending all police unions, that could be a big enough abolition to end a lot of this systemic bullshit. (That combined w/ ending choke holds, qualified immunity, and prosecuting cops and not holding them accountable).

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#123

Post by gremlinsinc »

twblalock wrote: post #105
danaris wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, n…

In a lot of places cops are paid for training and on the job while training. Why not have it be a 2-4 year training that they actually pay for out of pocket? You know like every other field in America?

Why should we subsidize their training?

Furthermore, maybe we make sure cops have 1 vest, 1 badge, 1 gun in a holster, ammo, and 1 tazer. Ban assault rifles, use USED cars, get rid of tanks, armored vehicles, etc... Get rid of tear gas, and explosive ordinances. Basically take away a LOT of their toys.

So gun, car, badge, uniform, vest, payroll and that's it. No paying any money at all to unions. Maybe even save some money for performance bonuses if they can lower their brutality outcomes as a collective body. Cops w/out any reports get like a 5k bonus at the end of the year. 20k after 10 years, etc...

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#124

Post by joelhoffman »

KorematsuFred wrote: post #45
voisin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about “Deunionize Police”? Doesn’t have the same ring, but would solve many of the issues people are protesting about (accountability, etc).

Democrats are unlikely to do that. If de-unionizing police is solution to incompetent cops what is the solution to incompetent schools ?

I think most people do not see most teachers as the basic problem in public schools. E.g. polls show overwhelming support for paying teachers more. The same has been true of police, but less so - Maybe that's changed?

If people perceive most of the workers as the basic problem in addition to the management and the government, which they rarely do, but police may now be an exception, I don't see why the union should be spared.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#125

Post by chrischen »

KorematsuFred wrote: post #31
chrischen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right so if you disarm the police then you have someone even less powerful and trained than an average citizen with a gun.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#126

Post by rodiger »

designdesign wrote: post #107
rodiger wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 availab…

Having done work as an EMT, people get violent on their own volition more often than you may think. Completely anecdotal but I've seen dozens of drunk/high/mentally ill etc people attack others and zero incidents where the cops escalated the situation.

It seems to me that cops/no cops each has its own pros and cons and neither is a clear "right" solution.

We definitely need more mental health support and less frivolous prosecution for things like drug possession and homelessness. Social programs would (hopefully) go a long way in addressing some of these at their root cause.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#127

Post by thu2111 »

awillen wrote: post #56
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…

I agree that to a lot of people, defund seems to imply abolish, which is not a great position. On the one hand, I think the word choice is somewhat purposeful, as it's designed to sound extreme and appeal to people who see the police as an extreme problem. On the other hand, it definitely lends itself to purposeful misrepresentation by opponents. That said, I think given the popularity of the movement, the phrasing d…

Or phrased another way, meaningful improvements don't fit inside snappy slogans. Which in turn means they don't really fit inside protest movements.

Obama wrote an essay about this. He said the only way to get meaningful change is to get involved in local politics. "Vote in municipal elections" is not a slogan that will appeal to the kinds of people who are fanatical BLM activists though.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#128

Post by thu2111 »

danaris wrote: post #111
twblalock wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, n…

At least in the cases where I've heard specifics, the intention is to essentially disband the existing police department and start a new one, that doesn't have the old bad police officers or the old union, protecting them from the consequences of their lawbreaking.

Brilliant.

And whilst you're building a new police force from scratch, who will be doing the policing in the meantime? Who will be appointed to create this new police force and how will they be chosen? What will they do the first time one of their new police officers gets shot? What will the city do if the brand new police force is incompetent because none of them have any experience? And then if they decide to unionise too?

Rebuild it from scratch rarely works out well in software. It's hard to imagine it working better for an entire police force.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#129

Post by seunosewa »

jeffbee wrote: post #35
hpoe wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Simply starting over today with current civilian leadership to draft a new doctrine guarantees a dramatically different outcome.

The current leadership (Trump) is very racist and authoritarian, so I'm not sure that your confidence fits the current time;

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#130

Post by seunosewa »

thu2111 wrote: post #128
danaris wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in the cases where I've heard specifics, the intention is to essentially disband the existing police department and start a new one, that doesn't have the old bad police officers or the old union, protecting them from the consequences of their lawbreaking.

Brilliant. And whilst you're building a new police force from scratch, who will be doing the policing in the meantime? Who will be appointed to create this new police force and how will they be chosen? What will they do the first time one of their new police officers gets shot? What will the city do if the brand new police force is incompetent because none of them have any experience? And then if they decide to union…

Actually, it has been done before and seems to have worked: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/872470135/new-police-force-fr...
Post reply on HN