Defund the Police meets the crime wave

Many urban police departments are seeing a lot of officers quitting, and having problems filling vacancies. They are down hundreds of positions, and this has the effect of reducing police presence for deterrence, and also lower arrest rates so that more criminals are out on the streets.

There were only 2 city council-members who voted against defunding. Whether or not actual budgets get reduced, urban cops got the message that they are not appreciated, or worse. The good ones can easily get jobs somewhere less stressful and with higher job satisfaction.

I think it’s a justified emotional reaction to injustice. A significant amount of the public exposure police have is extremely negative. Is it clear to anyone barely following along that police are providing value to society?

Here’s a simple example. Portland, OR has had extremely high gun violence this year, like many cities. The public perception is that the police are doing a very poor job handling that, either with bringing people to justice or preventing crime. Now, just a month ago, there was a manhunt near where I live. It seemed like half the force showed up for it, and the reason was that someone allegedly shot at police. It is very difficult to take this in a positive light when it seems the police are only turning up in force when they are threatened, rather than when the public feels unsafe.

I’m not trying to make a claim about what they should or shouldn’t be doing really, I’m just pointing out the severe PR problem the police have created for themselves. And it seems like they continue digging themselves into a hole.

I also think this has less to do with individuals, but it’s clear that the system of policing in place just isn’t working for the community. I don’t think the community will or even has to be experts on what the system should look like. We’re just people who want to feel safe in our city!

But everything about policing seems set up to primarily protect the police (qualified immunity, asset seizure, police unions, lack of accountability from top to bottom, extreme focus on violence as a solution), rather than the public. That’s very concerning.

Anyways, my point is that when average people see a system that isn’t working for them, and don’t really get the “good” that the system may also be doing, of course the reaction is going to be very negative. It just makes sense. And since if you have a very negative view of a system, why would you want to deal with it at all?

And there aren’t clear solutions to the problem! I’d say getting rid of qualified immunity and asset seizure (to an extent) is a start, but that probably requires constitutional changes. And that’s unlikely to get anywhere anytime soon. And police unions seem to prevent local changes as well. If the police aren’t willing to reform themselves despite the very obvious need, it’s no wonder the public is not reacting in a “constructive” way.

I’m not. It doesn’t matter what jazz is or isn’t. The point is misdirection.

I’m not going to argue that Rap isn’t often talking about crime and violence, but rap is a wide genre and quite a lot of it is not violent. The origins of Rap are quite different than what we have today, you might be interested to learn the history of rap and how/why it changed.

You might also learn about rap and not cherrypick what fits your narrative. You might understand that alot of rap is about the lifestyle individuals feel forced to live and just about their circumstances in general.

This narrative also convieniently ignores the massive audience for pop, gospel and R&B in the same communities you’re discussing as if black people listen to rap and only rap.

Regardless biggest consumers of rap are not black people, but in your analysis only black people are unable to overcome the influence of popular entertainment.

If rap causes black people to commit crime then country music must certainly cause drunk driving and Call of Duty is why we have school shootings.

> Also they don’t risk certain things because they might have to use force and they’re worried they’ll be charged with a crime f or doing so, (especially if people riot enough and the DA needs to satisfy them).

It's simple: don't commit crime.

> How do we both protest police brutality when it rears its head, while still treating officers like they’re on the side of the good guys (like most, but not all, are).

Get rid of the bad apples. Simple as that. No more unions and charges for those who decided to cover up instead of reporting malpractice. And liability insurance not paid by the taxpayers.

My understanding from the article is that the person was on foot, not in a vehicle. There is risk in any action you take. If they're spraying more houses, nor acting could mean they kill some of your neighbors. There are a lot of variables that were missing just discussing this online.