AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:18 pm
GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:08 pm
I can't explain the folks that say "defund and dismantle" - those are the folks that are flat out crazy and think all policing in this world started with slave catcher patrols in the 19th century (ignoring the centuries of policing and other public safety measures that came before that).
I can certainly understand the gripe with policing, though. I think I may have been stopped by cops once in my life when I wasn't doing something patently illegal (like speeding or running a stop sign). The one time I got pulled over by a cop because she said my brake light was out - it was a Sunday morning, a mile from my house, and she even gave me a warning on it. And I was annoyed about that. I can't imagine the Black folks who have been pulled over or stopped by the police 20, 30, 40 times in their lives. And I know it has to be at least mostly true. There's no way they were speeding or running lights that many times. That has to be incredibly disconcerting, especially when you also look at the number of violent interactions with cops that some of these stops result in. If there's a 1 in 1000 chance an encounter with a cop ends up in a violent outcome, of course you're going to be concerned when you get pulled over 30 or 40 times throughout your life. I've been pulled over once for really nothing, and that one time pissed me off. I think I read the other day that Will Smith said growing up in Philly he got stopped by the cops on numerous occasions, and he lost track of how many times cops used the n word when dealing with him. That's just patently unacceptable and until we clean that up we'll never get anywhere.
Policing has to change for us to get past this. You can't stop a person in a vehicle or just walking down the street simply because they're Black, yet I'm sure it happens every day. And I'm good with the idea that not every incident deserves police presence. If you're dealing with drug abuse or a homeless person or mental illness then even if the cop is there someone else who's not a cop should probably take the lead. If that's what defunding means, then by all means, call it something else and talk about doing that. Talk about being able to not have police stop Blacks 30-40 times in their lifetimes, or more even, and then we can make some progress.
None of that changes the fact that a 50% reduction in funding/staffing is gonna result in an absolute free-for-all in those cities. Drugs. Sex trafficking. Armed robbery. B&E. Random killings...Seattle couldn’t self-police a 6-square block area for 2 weeks without there being 2 shooting deaths. Think “Chicago” on steroids.
Hell, just look at what’s happened in NYC since the cops basically said “fuck it”.
Do there need to be changes in the way police forces work/profile? No doubt. But it’s a fine line between a semblance of law and order and anarchy. We’re about to find out exactly where that line is....
There's a broad range of what people mean by "defund the police". Those who mean a shift of a portion of the police funding to other programs that are arguably better equipped to handle certain types of problems, and taking those problems off the plate of the police, might have a valid argument.
However, it's naive at best to think that should be the first step of the process. Until they have defined what other programs the money goes to, how they will operate, how much of the budget gets shifted, etc. along with getting those systems in place, it is a bad idea. You don't defund and reduce law enforcement without having those other programs in place.
Sure, look at other solutions that end up reducing police funding/numbers. Come up with a concrete proposal. Then we can talk. But this would be a long process.
In the mean time, it seems to me that addressing police unions and contract clauses that make it extremely hard to get rid of the bad apples will get the most benefit.