Is defunding the police a good idea or bad idea?

[myrdale]

I saw an article on the news about a teacher who had an affair with a student. I think we should de-fund all school!

[disneysteve]

I read something this morning that put it in good terms. It said that we ask the police to do everything including many things they simply aren’t very good at. And we give them incredible leeway to attempt to do those things and with very little accountability.

Police reform isn’t about punishing anybody. Just the opposite. It’s about providing the proper resources and staffing needed so that the people being tasked with various responsibilities are actually capable and qualified and experienced at doing them.

[Smallsteps]

I would never want to be a police officer. Super high stress, your life on the line every day, most working a second job to make ends meat, and put in situations where you have to make a life or death decision in a tenth of a second. That decision could effect the rest of your life. And a bunch of arm chair quarterbacks who have never had a gun pointed at them or who have never had to discharge a weapon at an aggressor are busy scrutinizing every move that they make. I feel for officers, but I would never want the job.

Defunding the police sounds like an awful shortsighted and purely political move that is going to come back and bite them in the behind.
If a doctor engages in illegal behavior that causes a patient to die the response isn't to close down the entire hospital.
If a soldier kills someone in cold blood the military isn't defunded and shut down.
I think everyone needs to stop and think before simply reacting due to emotions.

Police aren't perfect, more training might be needed, but most of these people shouting and protesting will have zero qualms about dialing 911 if they ever end up being robbed or assaulted. The police might have their problems, but they are often the first line and the only line of defense that a lot of people have. Love them or hate them, that's just how it is.

This quote is spot on.....
Unfortunately just like everything else some people simply do not think any further then 15 minutes in advance. Many of the problems I have seen discussed in articles and other places are more about income/ wealth disparity then it is about race.

Perhaps instead of social workers we have bankers, financial planners and career counselors out there to help ( sarcasm).

If we need to rebuild a system perhaps this is a problem of the systematic failure of the public school system. Maybe we need to de-fund and rebuild
We have discussed personal finance education many many times here and mostly the response is it won't work etc.
More often then not every time a story of someone involved in a crime starts out with " had no money, needed to eat" . there are programs out there other alternatives but often are a bureaucratic maze that simply perhaps need to be " re built" to better fit the situation.... funny thing is often these programs are staffed with social workers....

Some seem oblivious to the fact that if they only have a low wage dead end job ... that a CRIMINAL record is not advancing them it may even further limit the options.
Imagine how many caught up in mob mentality that have been or might be caught.... innocent people were killed ...
I can not see on job sites listings for rioting, arson and looting....as skills needed....

I have known some very nice people whom seemed stuck in bottom end jobs when I suggested they should apply at better option that I had easily advanced to some better companies making more money.... they find out they can't advance ... lack of skills ... NOPE Simply put they cannot pass a background check.
Many simply think it is the systems fault they even fault places that want to limit risk by running backgrounds on candidates.
It is NEVER a bad choice they made that follows them everywhere... it was a long time ago forget about it seems to be the mantra.

I think many people promise some utopia that simply does not exist. No long term consequences for actions and everyone gets a Do-over like life is Junior high school.
Any substance alcohol or other adds problems to the situation but many in the name of help blames the substance not those whom chose to ingest it.
Substance abuse is a growing problem yet we open up and consider essential during lock downs pot shops ...... now with bars closed.... some states have extended that amount of options to have alcohol delivered to your home.
Do we require any of those situations to have a substance abuse counselor to evaluate each purchase to see if it is recreational / medicinal or addiction?

ZERO unemployment when we add counselors and social workers to every aspect of life to navigate choices and decisions and push the DO-over button every time things go badly.

There are many professions that have bad actors in them I do not see them being re imagined every time something comes to light. Often co-workers say nothing as well teachers/ medical professionals etc.
One of the BIGGEST obstacles to ridding the system of a bad doctor is the SILENCE of those working in the field that may know or suspect issues. Where is the reform / retraining of that?

I cannot see that NO co-worker ever saw / suspected or otherwise could help fire and prosecute teachers who are committing statutory rape ?
There has seemed to be more teacher/ student sex reported BUT it is no longer sensationalized as early examples that were made into TV movies.
I cannot believe school counselors are right there on front lines have not eliminated this ( again sarcasm).

[riverwed070707]

Late to the party. Had a lot to say but see most points picked up later in the convo. Totally agree the term "defunding" needs to go away because it doesn't accurately depict what proponents are asking for. I had the same initial reaction as everyone else - "That seems like a dumb idea" - but after as much research as I could do based on information that's out there, it's really a very reasonable proposal. I think there are a lot of questions of HOW it would be implemented but the why is totally logical IMO. I'm not advocating, as I see myself in a learning phase still, but I do think people should be required to read up on it before having an opinion. Defunding is just a term referencing cutting some funds. We defund public schools all the time. I would much rather see us pour billions into well paid and qualified teachers and fully funded school systems to address the root cause than to pay police officers to haul our kids away who were never given the proper resources to succeed in the first place. This isn't an against the police movement - if anything it should benefit them long term.

[riverwed070707]

I think one way to lower felonious crime is to make most drugs legal.

Legal or decriminalized? Big difference but I would definitely support federally decriminalizing. Addicts need rehab not prison cells.

[QuarterMillionMan]

All the media coverage is on George Floyd. Was there any media coverage on Capt. David Dorn's funeral? The media is very powerful pushing it's own agenda. https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/lo...e-9fd9ff107e05

[ua_guy]

Late to the party. Had a lot to say but see most points picked up later in the convo. Totally agree the term "defunding" needs to go away because it doesn't accurately depict what proponents are asking for. I had the same initial reaction as everyone else - "That seems like a dumb idea" - but after as much research as I could do based on information that's out there, it's really a very reasonable proposal. I think there are a lot of questions of HOW it would be implemented but the why is totally logical IMO. I'm not advocating, as I see myself in a learning phase still, but I do think people should be required to read up on it before having an opinion. Defunding is just a term referencing cutting some funds. We defund public schools all the time. I would much rather see us pour billions into well paid and qualified teachers and fully funded school systems to address the root cause than to pay police officers to haul our kids away who were never given the proper resources to succeed in the first place. This isn't an against the police movement - if anything it should benefit them long term.

Also late to the party here, but have been actively watching coverage as well as absorbing rhetoric from a 360 degree viewpoint. Agreed that "defunding" needs to go--it is sending an unintended message and rallying extremist viewpoints. Agencies like police/fire/swat have evolved into paramilitaries over the last handful of decades instead of their intended goal of developing civilian service organizations. How these agencies developed into paramilitaries is a long story, but it begins with the US military and how it attracts and retains (or doesn't retain) its own talent, and how that infiltrates these organizations.

Yes, while department budgets need to be scrutinized-- for example, the police department in a sleepy bedroom community 40 miles east of Seattle of 4,000 residents acquired an $800,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Vehicle (MRAV) through the US DoD's Surplus (1033) program. It's a fully armor-plated military assault vehicle weighing 18 tons. Seventeen other agencies also purchased these vehicles. This same department also received 4 bomb robots and 6 combat rifles through the program; the department employed 12 officers at the time.

What the hell for?

Trimming the budget so that tiny municipal departments aren't buying military-grade weapons and vehicles for intimidation is one thing--and should be addressed sooner than later.

However, 'brotherhood' is a set of unwritten laws and rules unto itself, and that remains to be addressed.

[myrdale]

I read something this morning that put it in good terms. It said that we ask the police to do everything including many things they simply aren’t very good at. And we give them incredible leeway to attempt to do those things and with very little accountability.

Police reform isn’t about punishing anybody. Just the opposite. It’s about providing the proper resources and staffing needed so that the people being tasked with various responsibilities are actually capable and qualified and experienced at doing them.

These are a couple of good points. While the police have to respond to "bad" people, there is a substantial percent of the people they interact with who have mental illness. And if you consider the effects of drugs or alcohol, from abuse or self medication, it compounds it even worse.

Last year I was the passenger in the front seat of a friends truck. We were going though an intersection when a car from the on coming turn lane pulled out in front of us and we hit it so hard it spun around in a circle and bent the rear passenger wheel at a 45* angle.

Once the momentary shock passed, we got out and checked on the driver. She was a white teenage girl, absolutely beautiful. The first though is here is a "good" girl who just did something stupid. We assured her everything was going to be fine, but she went into an absolute panic. Then she did something extremely stupid. She took off, back wheel dragging on the ground. I did snap a photo of her license plate before she took off.

I gave the photo to the police, they picked her up the next day.

Later, I did a search for the license plate. Followed by a search of the owners name, followed by a search of Facebook for the owner, followed by a search of Facebook for his daughter. And there she was. Cheerleader, church go'er, cancer survivor.

I don't know if she was DUI, but hit and run drops you to the "bad" people category in my book. Everything else said she was a good person.

Sometimes people panic. And sometimes people do stupid stuff. (I should put that on a tee shirt).

To the second point. Its my understand the police in general will go though three steps. They will ask you to do something. They will tell you to do something. Then finally they will make you do something. Also they have to worry about getting home safely every day.

If you run from the police, it is going to end badly for you.
If you fight the police it is going to end badly for you.
If you point a firearm at the police, it is going to end very badly for you.

I am 100% for exercising my rights. Don't answer questions. Don't submit to searches. Demand to know if you're being detained and for what suspected crime. But when they tell you to do something, you'd better do it.

[QuarterMillionMan]

Excellent story myrdale. And 100% agreed.

[disneysteve]

If you run from the police, it is going to end badly for you.

Running from the police is never a good idea.

However, there are also numerous well-documented (body cam or bystander video) of someone unarmed running from the police only to be shot in the back. That shouldn't happen.

Even the case the other day in Atlanta is troubling. Yes he had a taser, but the police knew it was a taser, which isn't a deadly weapon. Was shooting and killing him the proper response to stopping a guy holding a taser or was that excessive?

[kork13]

If you run from the police, it is going to end badly for you.
If you fight the police it is going to end badly for you.
If you point a weapon at the police, it is going to end very badly for you.

I am 100% for exercising my rights. Don't answer questions. Don't submit to searches. Demand to know if you're being detained and for what suspected crime. But when they tell you to do something, you'd better do it.

Forget t-shirts...that should be on billboards. [I made a minor edit]

Even the case the other day in Atlanta is troubling. Yes he had a taser, but the police knew it was a taser, which isn't a deadly weapon. Was shooting and killing him the proper response to stopping a guy holding a taser or was that excessive?

Not at all to justify, but perhaps to consider... The options available to police are relatively few. Many (most?) police forces have by now adopted tazers into standard issue, so in this circumstance, tazer v. tazer might have been another option. But at the same time, if the other guy gets his tazer off first, the policeman could be disabled, his weapon unprotected, and become an even more dangerous situation (note: I'm totally unaware of the actual details of this incident). That dynamic is a leading concern with their use, because they are slower & less effective (being one shot, if you miss you're in trouble... also, not everyone reacts the same to a tazer -- some folks can fight through it, especially on certain types of drugs)

The other difficulty that police (and law enforcement/military at large) face is that they're are barred from using weapons to merely wound/disable. Many folks don't realize it, but if an officer determines the need to use his/her weapon, they are ONLY allowed to shoot to kill, aiming for center-mass (torso/abdomen). The use of a weapon by law enforcement to merely wound/disable someone has been deemed (by legal statute/court precedent) to fall under the heading of "cruel & unusual" and is thus an unconstitutional use of force.

As with many things, it's not black and white -- lots and lots of gray space, which unfortunately is often the realm in which police officers are forced to operate on a daily basis.

[disneysteve]

Forget t-shirts...that should be on billboards. [I made a minor edit]

Not at all to justify, but perhaps to consider... The options available to police are relatively few. Many (most?) police forces have by now adopted tazers into standard issue, so in this circumstance, tazer v. tazer might have been another option. But at the same time, if the other guy gets his tazer off first, the policeman could be disabled, his weapon unprotected, and become an even more dangerous situation (note: I'm totally unaware of the actual details of this incident). That dynamic is a leading concern with their use, because they are slower & less effective (being one shot, if you miss you're in trouble... also, not everyone reacts the same to a tazer -- some folks can fight through it, especially on certain types of drugs)

The other difficulty that police (and law enforcement/military at large) face is that they're are barred from using weapons to merely wound/disable. Many folks don't realize it, but if an officer determines the need to use his/her weapon, they are ONLY allowed to shoot to kill, aiming for center-mass (torso/abdomen). The use of a weapon by law enforcement to merely wound/disable someone has been deemed (by legal statute/court precedent) to fall under the heading of "cruel & unusual" and is thus an unconstitutional use of force.

As with many things, it's not black and white -- lots and lots of gray space, which unfortunately is often the realm in which police officers are forced to operate on a daily basis.

All good points for sure. Especially the "shoot to wound" point. And I totally get that for a number of reasons. If you're firing your weapon, you want that bullet to hit the target, not miss the guy's leg and hit a bystander, for example, so you're aiming for the torso. Unless you're a sniper, no cop is shooting your shoulder or leg like they do on TV.

[riverwed070707]

Forget t-shirts...that should be on billboards. [I made a minor edit]

Not at all to justify, but perhaps to consider... The options available to police are relatively few. Many (most?) police forces have by now adopted tazers into standard issue, so in this circumstance, tazer v. tazer might have been another option. But at the same time, if the other guy gets his tazer off first, the policeman could be disabled, his weapon unprotected, and become an even more dangerous situation (note: I'm totally unaware of the actual details of this incident). That dynamic is a leading concern with their use, because they are slower & less effective (being one shot, if you miss you're in trouble... also, not everyone reacts the same to a tazer -- some folks can fight through it, especially on certain types of drugs)

The other difficulty that police (and law enforcement/military at large) face is that they're are barred from using weapons to merely wound/disable. Many folks don't realize it, but if an officer determines the need to use his/her weapon, they are ONLY allowed to shoot to kill, aiming for center-mass (torso/abdomen). The use of a weapon by law enforcement to merely wound/disable someone has been deemed (by legal statute/court precedent) to fall under the heading of "cruel & unusual" and is thus an unconstitutional use of force.

As with many things, it's not black and white -- lots and lots of gray space, which unfortunately is often the realm in which police officers are forced to operate on a daily basis.

Yet another alternative to consider, why are we calling the police to respond to a man sleeping in his car in a parking lot? He's not threatening anyone, he's not driving and putting his own and others lives at risk. When the cops did get called, why didn't they just offer to drive him home and let him get his car the next day? Who, in this instance, were they serving and protecting? Not the man that was sleeping in his car. Not justifying the mans actions one bit but he clearly went into fight or flight mode when they decided they were going to arrest him instead of just sending him on his way - had they not done that, would the outcome have been different?

[ua_guy]

Yet another alternative to consider, why are we calling the police to respond to a man sleeping in his car in a parking lot? He's not threatening anyone, he's not driving and putting his own and others lives at risk. When the cops did get called, why didn't they just offer to drive him home and let him get his car the next day? Who, in this instance, were they serving and protecting? Not the man that was sleeping in his car. Not justifying the mans actions one bit but he clearly went into fight or flight mode when they decided they were going to arrest him instead of just sending him on his way - had they not done that, would the outcome have been different?

I do think there are instances where "calling the police" to intervene is overkill. But, in a "better safe than sorry" world, this is how they, as well as Fire/EMS, end up responding to many bizarre calls. Often times Fire/EMS are first to arrive but call in help from officers to ensure their safety on the scene.

A man asleep in his vehicle could pose a threat to public safety or himself. The hope is that he's had a long day and safely parked the vehicle so he could doze off versus continuing to drive drowsy and pose a risk. The reality is, there's a good possibility he's under the influence of a substance, or has possibly suffered a medical emergency in combination with substance abuse. A civilian trying to handle the situation could cause additional conflict, or cause the impaired man to move on and endanger others while intoxicated.

I believe the latest incident at wendys involved the man falling asleep while in the drive thru. He was interrupting the store's business. He failed a sobriety test.

[disneysteve]

Yet another alternative to consider, why are we calling the police to respond to a man sleeping in his car in a parking lot? He's not threatening anyone, he's not driving and putting his own and others lives at risk. When the cops did get called, why didn't they just offer to drive him home and let him get his car the next day? Who, in this instance, were they serving and protecting? Not the man that was sleeping in his car. Not justifying the mans actions one bit but he clearly went into fight or flight mode when they decided they were going to arrest him instead of just sending him on his way - had they not done that, would the outcome have been different?

The question of if we are using resources efficiently is really the basis of the whole police reform conversation.

This case was kind of unusual though. The guy was asleep in his car, but he was parked IN the drive through lane at Wendy's. Other customers were having to maneuver around him to get through the drive through. I can understand police being called. Although he wasn't threatening anyone, he was creating a problem for the business. Plus the guy could have been experiencing some sort of medical emergency because, you know, who decides to take a nap in the drive through lane? So getting first responders on the scene seems like it was appropriate.


ETA: I just saw that ua_guy essentially posted the same thing.