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

71–80 of 137 posts

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#71

Post by jonahrd »

frankbreetz wrote: post #51

Progressives are notorious for clutching defeat from the jaws of victory. Why are not calling this "reform the police" or "police aren't social workers" or "invest in prevention instead of police". The are literally hundreds of things we can call it that the majority of Americans would get behind. I find it very frustrating because there is much better ways to deal with a variety of issues like homelessness, drug add…

The takeaway from these events is clear: There are a very large portion of Americans who live in a separate world from you, where "defund the police" does sound like an ideal goal, and police interactions are solely a source of danger.

Because the police are there to protect property of the upper class, it may be hard for a member of the upper class to envision a functioning society without those protections. However, what these demonstrations are trying to show is that there is a large portion of society in which the police are simply an oppressive force.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#72

Post by Novukus »

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.

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.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#73

Post by vsareto »

evilantnie wrote: post #63
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…

Who are these normal people you're referring to? Why is it a scary concept to them? Why should the message be diluted to reduce normal people's fears? It's explicitly demanding an alternative system to one that has for decades instilled fear of violence towards Black folks. I support the slogan, and the weight behind it. The intention is to spark discomfort in normal people, change won't happen when normal people fee…

>The intention is to spark discomfort in normal people, change won't happen when normal people feel comfortable.

This leads to: Everyone's constantly being spammed messages being made to feel uncomfortable because someone, somewhere always has an agenda to push.

That's leadership through fear. 100%.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#74

Post by renewiltord »

the-dude wrote: post #46
renewiltord wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Did I say that?

Not precisely, but surely you understand that conversations frequently involve bringing up related thoughts and are not mere thrust and riposte.

Or, alternatively, "Did I say that you said that?"

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#75

Post by neonate »

Sessions wrote: post #7
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.

https://newrepublic.com/article/158104/rush-redefine-defund-... The meaning is not a settled question.

That's really interesting. I found this too: https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1270380991178321921.

It seems there's a debate between people who mean "defund" literally, that is, who want to abolish police, and people who are trying to moderate or (depending on your perspective) dilute the idea. The first group seems to have been at it for longer. If so, they must resent their slogan and their idea being coopted in this way.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#76

Post by root_axis »

pwinnski wrote: post #44
root_axis wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Here's one recent article: https://reason.com/2020/06/03/its-time-to-bust-police-unions...

So the article seems to present the typical argument against unions, i.e. "they protect bad employees", but ultimately the story concludes with the creation of a new union that negotiated an improved and ostensibly successful deescalation policy as part of the labor agreement. I don't think article presents a convincing case that unions are the problem.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#77

Post by analog31 »

root_axis wrote: post #58
minikites wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've heard the same line of argumentation used against all kinds of labor unions though. e.g. "teachers unions are failing our kids because they protect bad/apathetic/partisan teachers" or "auto unions are why American auto companies are failing since they protect workers who work 30 minutes a day and slack off the rest".

There's something to this argument, in my view. I think that unions are torn between serving the "labor movement" for lack of a better term, and serving the narrow interests of their most senior or influential members.

I grew up in a suburb of Detroit at a time when the auto industry was contracting. What I recall was that senior assembly line workers (my neighbors) were working 60 hour weeks and pulling down overtime pay, while junior workers were getting laid off.

Naturally, unemployed people had no union representation at all, and this was a perfect opportunity for politicians to start stoking anti-union resentment amongst the working class, which persists today.

Meanwhile as I recall in one of the European countries, perhaps Germany, the unions negotiated with the government and agreed to a 4 day work week, in order to keep a larger number of workers employed. As reported in the US, this became fodder for "those lazy Europeans and their 4 day work weeks."

In the US, the car companies reacted by pulling the plug on entire factories and moving them to anti-union states.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#78

Post by renewiltord »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #32
renewiltord wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's interesting to me. And this manifests in state workers who ask other people to stay 1.5 m apart encountering that violence? Fascinating.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#79

Post by minikites »

root_axis wrote: post #58
minikites wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've heard the same line of argumentation used against all kinds of labor unions though. e.g. "teachers unions are failing our kids because they protect bad/apathetic/partisan teachers" or "auto unions are why American auto companies are failing since they protect workers who work 30 minutes a day and slack off the rest".

You should examine who is telling you those things about non-police labor unions and what they stand to gain by saying those things.

Re: The Cities Taking Up Calls to Defund the Police

#80

Post by minikites »

eric_b wrote: post #55
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).

Personally I'd go with "Reform the Police" or "Police the Police". Or maybe "De-Militarize the Police" which is not the only goal but one with broader support.

How would de-militarizing the police affect the overwhelming racism problem that exists in police departments nationwide?
Post reply on HN