Abolish the police?

[GIGObuster]

@QuickSilver

This keeps getting brought up and I want to make sure we all have the same understanding of what happened in Camden. According to the article that was shared up-thread, the municipality of Camden folded their badly run and badly funded police department into the larger, better run, county police department. Funding was increased. New police hired. Significant effort was made to re-instate community police presence in the town of Camden which previously had virtually no police presence. Crime was decreased by 40% as a result. When NJ’s governor decreased the funding, 50 cops were fired and crime rates went up. When funding was restored, police was rehired, more reforms were introduced and crime rates went down again.

Which all goes to support the “Reform/Transform” not the extreme and radical feel good appeals of “Abolish”.

That is not what I saw what was reported:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/12/camden-policing-reforms-313750

As a movement grows in American cities and suburbs to overhaul police departments and confront their long records of racially unjust, violent enforcement, Camden is one rare—and complicated—success story, a city that really did manage to overhaul its police force and change how it operated. And it took a move as radical and controversial as what some activists are calling for today: Camden really did abolish its police department.

And then the city set about rebuilding the police force with an entirely new one under county control, using the opportunity to increase the number of cops on the streets and push through a number of now-heralded progressive police reforms. And with time, the changes started to stick in a department that just years earlier seemed unfixable.

Of course, again, that was targeted to one place where abuses and corruption were clear, not a solution for every one.

On top of that, the police department had a reputation for bad cops. Of the 37 excessive use of force complaints levied in 2011, not one had been “sustained,” or clearly proven or disproven, which raised serious red flags about accountability with the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in New Jersey at the time. In 2010, five officers in the department were charged with evidence planting, fabrication and perjury. Later, state and federal courts would go on to overturn the convictions of 88 people who had been arrested and charged by those officers.

Without the restrictions of the union, proponents argued, more cops could be put on the streets of Camden, and hopefully, the city’s deadly spiral could finally be stopped.

Not everyone agreed with the changes. A group of Camden residents who saw this as high-handed intervention submitted a petition to stop the disbandment with the goal of placing the issue on the ballot in 2012. Redd and Moran filed a complaint against the residents on the grounds that the petition amounted to an unlawful restraint of legislative power.

In a strange legal coda to the whole drama, the case filed by the Camden residents to save their local police department worked its way through New Jersey courts and ultimately ended up in front of the state Supreme Court, which ruled 6-0 in favor of the residents in 2015. But it was too late: The Camden County police force had been around for four years, and by most accounts, was already a success. In this case, politics had moved faster than the courts and, legally or not, the Camden city police force was long gone.

Those who championed the disbandment of the department say the upheaval was critical to the department’s ultimate success. Scott Thomson, the Camden police chief at the time, had locked horns with the police union for years over contracts and virtually “any type” of managerial decision, he says.

[QuickSilver]

@GIGObuster

That is not what I saw what was reported:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/12/camden-policing-reforms-313750

Of course, again, that was targeted to one place where abuses and corruption were clear, not a solution for every one.

I’m not sure where it is you are finding disagreement with what I summarized in that post. Highlight where that is for me and I’ll be happy to argue with you on that point.

[GIGObuster]

@QuickSilver

I’m not sure where it is you are finding disagreement with what I summarized in that post. Highlight where that is for me and I’ll be happy to argue with you on that point.

Please notice that the article points out that indeed, “Camden really did abolish its police department.” Not just “Reform/Transform” as you declared it was not abolition.

In any case abolition/defund of all police departments is not proposed by the Democrats, but some localities with clear corruption cases can and did use it before.

[QuickSilver]

@GIGObuster

Please notice that the article points out that indeed, “Camden really did abolish its police department.” Not just “Reform/Transform” as you declared it was not abolition.

In any case abolition/defund of all police departments is not proposed by the Democrats, but some localities with clear corruption cases can and did use it before.

We’re arguing semantics. I submit that they did so in name only. The dept. was rolled up into the country office. Very few were fired in the process.

But if it’s that important to you, I concede the point that the municipal Camden police department is no longer in existence and therefore has been “abolished”.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

SCOTUS won’t be taking a closer look at qualified immunity for cops this term: Police shootings: Supreme Court declines to weigh in on legal doctrine that shields law enforcement | CNN Politics

[Northern_Piper]

@asahi

Again, “abolish the police” is a slogan - I think that’s pretty clear to most people. The question is whether or not we can disband an existing police force and rebrand it into something that is remarkably different.

A piss-poor, misleading slogan that isn’t what you’re advocating for, and makes an easy target for political opponents.

Sure, keep using it if want to reduce your chances of success.

[Czarcasm]

@Northern_Piper

A piss-poor, misleading slogan that isn’t what you’re advocating for, and makes an easy target for political opponents.

Sure, keep using it if want to reduce your chances of success.

Give us something better that you think could catch on.

[DrDeth]

@asahi

Again, “abolish the police” is a slogan - I think that’s pretty clear to most people. The question is whether or not we can disband an existing police force and rebrand it into something that is remarkably different.

Worlds worst slogan. Guaranteed win for trump in November.

[DrDeth]

@Czarcasm

Give us something better that you think could catch on.

Reform the Police.

or- how about -just do what needs to be done, instead of handing trump a win in November?

[Czarcasm]

@DrDeth

Reform the Police.

or- how about -just do what needs to be done, instead of handing trump a win in November?

Promises of “Police Reform” have fallen through in the past, so that slogan is seen as nothing more than bullshit.
BTW, was the NPR interview I found the one you were talking about?

[DrDeth]

@Czarcasm

Promises of “Police Reform” have fallen through in the past, so that slogan is seen as nothing more than bullshit.
BTW, was the NPR interview I found the one you were talking about?

So, you are saying that a different slogan will make all the difference and reform the police?:dubious:

I have no idea what post you are talking about.

[DrDeth]

@GIGObuster

Please notice that the article points out that indeed, “Camden really did abolish its police department.” Not just “Reform/Transform” as you declared it was not abolition.
…

Other cites, like the one I posted earlier, said “no they didnt”. On paper they did, in practice they didnt.

[Czarcasm]

@DrDeth

I have no idea what post you are talking about.

This post where you made claims about an NPR interview with a police union president. It wasn’t posted that long ago.

[Czarcasm]

I guess we can assume that I found the interview you were referring to(found here)…which absolutely does not say what you claimed it said, was not really hard hitting, and made no mention of any fact-checking.

[DrDeth]

@Czarcasm

I guess we can assume that I found the interview you were referring to(found here)…which absolutely does not say what you claimed it said, was not really hard hitting, and made no mention of any fact-checking.

So what does it say? Saying “it doesnt say that” is not helpful.

The NPR story i listened to had many quotes from previous interview with a Police Union President, interspersed with commentary, fact checks and quotes from other sources. It was quite hard hitting and just last week.

[Czarcasm]

@DrDeth

So what does it say? Saying “it doesnt say that” is not helpful.

The NPR story i listened to had many quotes from previous interview with a Police Union President, interspersed with commentary, fact checks and quotes from other sources. It was quite hard hitting and just last week.

I provided the link, so you tell me if that is what you are referring to. I wish you would quit dancing around-it is very tiring.

[davidm]

The NYPD is eliminating it’s plain clothes anti-crime unit.

NYPD disbands anti-crime unit after ‘disproportionate’ number of shootings

The unit has had a history of high-profile shootings and deaths and, year-over-year, the cops in the patrol account for more than half of police-involved shootings, according to NYPD’s annual discharge reports.

[Czarcasm]

@davidm

The NYPD is eliminating it’s plain clothes anti-crime unit.
NYPD disbands anti-crime unit after 'disproportionate' number of shootings

I find this most disturbing:

“When you look at the number of anti-crime officers that operate within New York City, and you look at a disproportionate, quite frankly, percentage of complaints and shootings — and they are doing exactly what was asked of them,” Shea said.

The problems happened because they were doing their job properly. :eek:

[DrDeth]

@Czarcasm

I provided the link, so you tell me if that is what you are referring to. I wish you would quit dancing around-it is very tiring.

I see. So, when I ask you a question, like in ATMB, even several times- you get to ignore it. If you ask ME a question, a immediate and full reply is demanded.

Homey dont play that game.

[RickJay]

@asahi

Again, “abolish the police” is a slogan - I think that’s pretty clear to most people.

No, it absolutely is not. It is not clear to most people, and is especially not clear to an overwhelming majority of white people. There’s also a significant difference in emotional reaction; while white people who do understand it are generally in the camp of “sounds like a good idea I guess,” white people who don’t are often TERRIFIED of it. My best friend’s parents are Trumpists, and they really, genuinely believe that liberals want to eliminate all law enforcement and just have anarchy and looting all the time. When people say “Abolish the police” and “Defend the police” they take that as meaning… exactly what it says.

When slogans like “Defund the police” and “Abolish the police” are used, most people interpret that as being literal. Those slogans are losers all the way and send votes straight to Donald J. Trump and his minions.