Yes, yes. look, you can say that, like Humpty Dumpty, that when I say "defund the police’ I mean something other than the literal meaning of the words. Very nice, but there are people out there that when they say "defund the police’ they do mean abolish the police. So it is no use defending that idiotic meme.
Look the ACLU came up with “Divest & re-invest”, which is a 100 times better.
So if I’m understanding you correctly, your position is that the laws are fine, but the problem is that a significant percentage of cops are criminal scum, breaking the laws and regulations regularly with full impunity, and getting away with it because the police do not self-police well and there is no other agency that polices the police well.
This is not directed at you but…
If we need more social workers then we should get more social workers. We live in a democracy, tell your elected officials you want more social workers.
An overabundance of police did not lead to the death of George Floyd or Jacob Blake. In both cases, police were summoned. The only difference a lack of police would have been a longer response time. They are not dead because of over-policing. They are dead because of police thinking they can literally get away with murder and trigger happy cops who think the standard for killing someone is the shadow of a potential threat. When we start putting some of these cops in jail, we will see cops exercise better discretion Sure some cops will quit but I suspect that the population of cops that quit are disproportionately consists of the population of cops that we should be firing.
If that makes it easier for you to understand, great.
Nothing has changed. Just your understanding.
Pretty close. I don’t think a significant percent of cops are criminal scum but they are a problem because with current police culture, noone will arrest them. I also think that some people don’t have the temperament to be cops and as soon as you figure that out, they should be riding a desk the rest of their career. Do you really think that the captains don’t know who the loose cannons are?
I think that there is an institution that can change police culture. I think the democratically elected governments and the judiciary can change police culture over time.
Given how damn visible police impropriety is, I’d say that the percentage of criminal cops isn’t insignificant - particularly since covering up a crime is, I believe, a crime. There are probably entire departments where every single cop is aware enough of what’s going on to be considered complicit.
How? By what approach?
Does it include maintaining or increasing their funding?
I don’t think the ACLU literally means to abolish the police.
What the ACLU wants seems to be to reduce the police force and increase social services. I don’t see why you have to reduce the polcie force to increase social services but at least their idea isn’t stupid on its face.
Visibility is not really an indicator of frequency, by that reasoning violence at BLM protests is ubiquitous. But yes if you include cops looking the other way, then it is probably a significant percentage.
By passing laws that restrict their ability to kill or abuse the citizenry. All police powers can be legislatively restricted. We can impose penalties on police officers that look the other way. We can impose vicarious liability on commanding officers. Corruption in the police is a threat to democracy, an honest and credible police force is as important to democracy as campaign finance laws.
And so what if that costs more money? It’s not going to cause hardship. Isn’t having a more honest credible police department more important than having a smaller cheaper police department?
Just about half of America doesnt understand " defund the police". So, what do you say it means?
Take away bloat and militaristic toys.
When you say “By passing laws that restrict their ability to kill or abuse the citizenry”, how is this going to happen if it doesn’t restrict the police’s freedom to blow away a black person who scares them with their excessive blackness? How is it going to happen if they aren’t required to first verify that there is, in fact, a threat being offered to them before putting seven bullets into whoever stands before them?
That comment was somewhat tongue in cheek - the actual way defunding the police would happen would be to remove whole classes of responsibility from them, making them smaller in the same way separating off parking control officers (aka “meter maids”) from them would make their numbers smaller.
But one presumes if we stop dressing and arming them like the goddamn military that would reduce costs as well - and it would reduce police indiscretion as well. (This remains true even if the military equipment exists for ‘fighting terrorism’.)
So his claim is that there is data, just not data that you and I , or really anyone can see…
I am skeptical.
Absolutely they do. They shoot all the time for “I thought he might have a gun”, “he was reaching for his waist.”
There doesn’t have to be a threat, the cop just has to claim to think that there was a threat.
And I even said, that there would have to be an actual threat. Don’t know why you chose to ignore the words that I did type in favor of making up words that I didn’t.
And any places that your extrapolation takes you is based on the path that you have chosen, not where I started.
Experience with both the rightfully and wrongfully accused. Less reason for bias. Plus, of course, just having a higher standard of education and responsibility.
Right now, cops generally only deal with people committing crimes, so they have tend to a bias that makes them think the worst of people. Hearing, and even defending and articulating the other side of the story would give them a different perspective on the situation.
Not sure what would be hard to understand about the idea that if you have more experienced people they will do better.
I guess you’ve never heard of lobbyists before?
I don’t know why you picked sexual assault as an an analogy, except for a pathetic attempt at appeal to emotion, but, unless you have some reason to say that false rape accusers are conspiring to plant evidence and cover for each other, then it is irrelevant.
There are plenty of examples of police doing this. Not just anecdotal.
And you don’t even try to deal with the point that being armed simply means that they had a weapon somewhere around them, not that they used it, threatened to use it, or were even in a position to use or threaten to use it.
When rape accusers are the ones in charge of compiling the data for the statistics, then we can talk.
That’s different from what you said earlier, where you said specifically that they could shoot someone in the back even if they didn’t pose a threat.
Yes, but if you police an area looking for crime, and do not do the same for others, then you are going to find higher crime in the areas that you do police looking for crime, justifying your policing of that area looking for crime.
No, you are using your interpretation of what you think that they are saying, not what they are actually saying.
Your point of the drug war is a good example. How has that increase in the use of force against citizenry worked out?
I didn’t say anything about anarchy, I said a reduction and elimination of the use of force against its citizenry. I agree that we could never get to a point of having no government, not so long as there are people who would rather murder their neighbor and take their stuff than work for it themselves. But working towards that world is a good thing, IMHO.
That’s kinda the nature of crime. Criminals don’t generally keep and turn in statistics about the crimes they have committed.
Well, I would do a few things.
If I had to pay out a dime to settle a case of excessive force, I would fire that guy. I would fire anyone that witnessed the excessive use of force and didn’t at least report that excessive use of force. You have got to break this culture of cops covering for each other. This is just a WAG but I suspect that by the time a cop kills somebody, there is frequently some history showing that the cop didn’t really have the temperament to be a cop, just a desire to be a cop. Picking cops for temperament and then training them is probably a big part of the answer.
You can change the law regarding when police can use lethal force. There is a limit to how much you can hamstring the police but cameras and clear rules of engagement would make sense.
If we want more social workers, why do we have to defund the police to hire them?
Basically you are talking about reassigning patrolman duties. What are they doing now that they wouldn’t have to do under your model? I don’t know of a single cop that would object to having traffic duty taken off their plate but that doesn’t really reduce the number of patrolmen you need.
Are you seriously comparing that to shooting a guy who was parked in Wendy’s driveway?
Cameras are pretty much the first and most important step here, because otherwise your “fire if this happens” rules collapse under “I didn’t see any excessive force. Did you see any excessive force, Fred?” “Nope! The suspect shot himself in the back of the head twice after stomping on his own neck.”
Though, last I heard body cameras had a nasty habit of getting accidentally turned off.
If we arrange for 80% of police calls to be completely routed away from the police towards other (unarmed) agencies, it defies logic to say that you need the same amount of patrolmen to do 20% of the work.
And there should be a penalty for that.
If there are multiple cops on the scene and they ALL had their cameras off then I would start with a rebuttable presumption of conspiracy to commit assault.
Does it take fewer patrolmen to cover 100 square miles if they don’t have to respond to noise complaints? For example when NYC implemented meter maids, how much do you think they reduced their police force? My understanding is that most of what patrolmen do is patrol. They walk or drive a beat.
So, if the City Attorney decides to settle out of court for $10000, just to get rid of the suit, you’d fire that cop?
I’m late to this thread, didn’t take the time to read every post and am not sure who exactly said what. but here goes:
To those who say to, literally, do away with the police – what do you propose? When a guy steals your car from you at gunpoint, what is your next move? Or when you hear the neighbor beating the tar out of his wife or kids? How about the neighbor beating the tar out of your wife or kids? Laws are meaningless if there isn’t a way to enforce them. The naiveté around such a proposal is staggering.
You want to turn over “non-law enforcement” tasks to someone else? Great! Most cops would be more than happy to have someone else respond to barking dog complaints, parking disputes, car crashes, landlord- tenant problems and medical calls. All you have to do is find, train and pay that someone else to be available 24 hours a day. You could probably reduce police staffing through attrition, if nothing else.
To the idea that there has to have been found, after the fact, an actual and not merely perceived threat, before an officer can use force – good luck with that. To say the cops should actually wait until the other guys fires the first shot before he can shoot is completely unrealistic. No one would take the job if that were the case (maybe that’s your goal). Are going to wait until an intruder in your house actually tries to harm your or your family before you do something about it? How about someone pointing a gun at your child? Are you going to let him shoot first before you shoot him? Should an officer encountering someone pointing a gun at a kid wait to see if the threat is actually real? You know, because maybe its a toy gun or not loaded or he is mentally ill. Or is your child’s safety more important than that of the guy with the gun? Is not the officer’s safety, likewise, more important? It sounds as though you are O.K. with risking the lives of police and that suspect safety should come first. Why? Why does an officer’s life deserve less priority than a suspect’s? Do you think they get paid to get shot at? How about killed? Tell me where in the world such a policy exists.
Does anyone really believe that there is more crime in a given area because there are more police to find it? Police districts are busy because that’s where the calls for service are coming from. If 80% of the calls for service come from the 12th District, doesn’t it make sense to deploy 80% of your manpower there? Its common sense that you don’t deploy resources where they are not needed. If you did so, the response time to calls in the 12th would increase and people would be crying “You are discriminating against us!”
Finally (for now), a cop can’t simply say “I thought he was going for a gun” and be cleared in a shooting. His belief has to be based on objective observations. “ I thought he was going for a gun” is far different than “At 2:00 am I was dispatched to a call of a burglary. On arrival I saw a male exiting a window. I was approximately 25’ from the male at this point On the ground under the window were various items including a flat screen TV and a jewelry box. I identified myself by saying loudly, “ Police! Don’t move!” At gunpoint I then ordered the male to get down on the ground face-down. The male began to run south and into the back yard. I repeatedly told the male to stop and get on the ground. He continued running and jumped over a fence into the neighboring yard. I followed at a distance of 20-30’. In that yard he encountered a fence too tall to get over. I again ordered to him to get on the ground at gunpoint with my flashlight illuminating him. At this point he reached into his pocket with his right hand, produced a dark shiny object and began to raise it in my direction. Fearing that it was a firearm and that he intended to shoot me, I discharged my duty weapon several times. The male collapsed. My partner arrived about 20 seconds later and handcuffed the male.”
Even that is not a detailed enough statement but it is far more than “I thought he had a gun”. Under the circumstances known to the officer at the time, did he have a reasonable belief that his life was in danger? It it really reasonable to ask the cop to risk getting killed to confirm the male was going to shoot him? Every case is different and all the circumstances must be considered. You’ll note that I didn’t say whether the burglar had a gun or a cell phone because it doesn’t matter. He was given the opportunity to comply with the cop but chose a different option – making movements that could be construed as a deadly threat
If you haven’t already, read Graham v Connor cited above. That is the law. If you don’t like it, elect a President that will change the USSC to such a degree that they will overturn a well-reasoned landmark case. Its not going to happen in my lifetime.
Good, well reasoned post, MikeF