Yesterday the Minneapolis City Council announced their intent to defund and dismantle the city’s police department. Some of my friends on social media see it as the end of the world. But I will argue here that this is a gross overreaction and, despite the dramatic nature of the announcement, the actual fact isn’t quite so radical.
But the big point I will make: policing as we know it not only ends up with a lot of people on the wrong side of unconstitutional uses of force, it is not exactly that effective either.
“We committed to dismantling policing as we know it in the city of Minneapolis and to rebuild with our community a new model of public safety that actually keeps our community safe,” Council President Lisa Bender said yesterday.
With nine votes the council has a veto-proof supermajority of the 13 members to enact the policy even over the objections of the mayor.
The big question is what this looks like. Bender told media sources that they are looking to shift police funding toward more community-based strategies and then discussed how to replace the current police department.
“The idea of having no police department is certainly not in the short term,” she added.
In a tweet Jeremiah Ellison, another councilmember, wrote, “We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department. And when we’re done, we’re not simply gonna glue it back together. We are going to dramatically rethink how we approach public safety and emergency response.”
Another Councilmember Steve Fletcher in Time, on Friday, wrote, “I have been surprised, then, by how difficult and controversial it has been to pass the relatively small budget changes that we have made, which have not even cut their budget but merely redirected some proposed increases to fund a new Office of Violence Prevention. Other programmatic proposals to change the way we police have been met with stiff institutional resistance.”
He said, “Our city needs a public safety capacity that doesn’t fear our residents. That doesn’t need a gun at a community meeting. That considers itself part of our community. That doesn’t resort quickly to pepper spray when people are understandably angry. That doesn’t murder black people.
“We can re-imagine what public safety means, what skills we recruit for, and what tools we do and do not need.”
Minneapolis, the epicenter because of the George Floyd incident, may be the first, but they will not be alone. I spoke to leaders in many other communities yesterday who are having the same discussion.
Defunding the police will clearly mean different things in different places. For some, this means reallocating some but not all funds away from police to social services. Others want to strip all police funding and dissolve departments.
CNN quoting Philip McHarris, a doctoral candidate in sociology at Yale University, noted that this could also mean dismantling the idea of police as “public stewards” meant to protect communities.
For those wedded to the current concept of policing—remember, that this is actually a fairly new institution that has evolved rapidly in the last century. It has always had an uneasy relationship to people of color—being used in the south to track down runaway slaves and later enforce white supremacy, and in the north often police would fail to enforce crimes committed against people of color.
Personally, though, while I think it is easy to point to disproportionate uses of force against people of color and police killing of African American men, that is only the tip of the iceberg of the problems.
Remember, I have attended court now for a decade in various jurisdictions and watching police testify in cases, and it is disturbing that many are under-educated on both the law and the culture of the communities that they police. Many are poorly trained. Some lie, others are sloppy. Excessive force is rampant. Poor investigation techniques are even more rampant.
Crime has been falling pretty steadily for the last 40 years. Some people will attribute that to tough on crime laws. Some will attribute it to policing. Most researchers trained in comparative statics discount those two factors and focus heavily on a third one—demographic shift. And the fact that the peak in crime was actually heavily out of step with the rest of American history.
One reason I would discount policing as a reason is there is no particular reason to believe we are particularly good at it. And if you believe the stats, we are getting worse.
In a 2018 San Jose Mercury News article, they looked at clearance rates for homicide cases. In 1965 it was 91 percent. In 2016 it was 59.4 percent. During that time, the US population increased by 54 million but the homicide rate declined from 7.4 in 1996 to 5.3 in 2016.
We are not just bad at solving murders. The FBI report from 2019 found that only 45 percent of violent crimes lead to arrest and prosecution. Property crimes are much worse—only 17 percent of burglaries, arsons, and car thefts are “cleared.”
We keep hearing from police complaining about reform measures leading to a rise in crime—why? When they don’t catch people in the first place. Deterrence is a function not only of the potential punishment but also the certainty of being caught. If you doubled the clearance rate, you could lower the penalty and have it be much more effective.
So police officers violate the rights of people of color, they aren’t very effective at solving crimes, and when they do violate departmental policies they are often given slaps on the wrist.
The New York Times yesterday featured a major story: “How Police Unions Became Such Powerful Opponents to Reform Efforts.” They note: “Half a decade after a spate of officer-involved deaths inspired widespread protest, many police unions are digging in to defend members.”
The Times notes that, as union membership has dropped, “higher membership rates among police unions give them resources they can spend on campaigns and litigation to block reform.”
They cite the case of Kim Gardner who was elected in St. Louis as a reformer: “But after she proposed a unit within the prosecutor’s office that would independently investigate misconduct, she ran into the powerful local police union.”
The union worked to pressure lawmakers to set aside the proposal “which many supported but then never brought to a vote. Around the same time, a lawyer for the union waged a legal fight to limit the ability of the prosecutor’s office to investigate police misconduct.”
They also cited the case of Lt. Bob Kroll in Minneapolis. Remember the officer, Derrick Chauvin, had 18 sustained complaints against him at the time he killed George Floyd.
But the union president, Lt. Bob Kroll, has a worse record. Lt. Kroll, after prosecutors in Minneapolis charged an officer with murder in the death of George Floyd, denounced political leaders, accusing them of selling out his members and firing four officers without due process.
“It is despicable behavior,” he wrote in a letter to union members where he also referred to protesters as a “terrorist movement.”
The Times reports that Kroll himself is the subject of at least 29 complaints, he has also chided the Obama administration for its “oppression of police,” and praised President Trump as someone who “put the handcuffs on the criminals instead of us.”
The question is can restructuring policing—which is really what we are talking about—help solve these problems? Can we get better trained, better educated, more culturally sensitive agents to take over from the current policing structure?
And if we do it—will it lead to a surge in crime?
One experience—that of Camden, NJ—suggests that it will not.
CityLab in 2018 notes the experience of Camden: “Often ranked as one of the deadliest cities in America, Camden, New Jersey, ended 2017 with its lowest homicide rate since the 1980s.”
In 2013, the article reports, “the Camden Police Department was disbanded, reimagined, and born again as the Camden County Police Department, with more officers at lower pay—and a strategic shift toward ‘community policing.’”
The article notes that meant a focus on “rebuilding trust between the community and their officers.”
“For us to make the neighborhood look and feel the way everyone wanted it to, it wasn’t going to be achieved by having a police officer with a helmet and a shotgun standing on a corner,” Police Chief Scott Thomson said. Now, he wants his officers “to identify more with being in the Peace Corps than being in the Special Forces.”
“The old police mantra was make it home safely,” Camden police officer Tyrell Bagby told the New York Times in April. “Now we’re being taught not only should we make it home safely, but so should the victim and the suspect.”
Mayor Frank Moran told them, “These guys are more than just reporting 9-to-5 in uniform. They’re taking their own time and being mentors in the community. That speaks volumes.”
If the Camden model is any guide, perhaps this isn’t so scary after all. At some point out, we have to acknowledge that the current system really doesn’t work. It doesn’t work for people of color. It doesn’t work for solving crimes. And the crime rate is probably due to broader societal changes rather than policing.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
So, David… Davis prides itself in being innovative, and a ‘leader’…
So what do you propose Davis does, while we watch events play out elsewhere?
Dismantle DPD as quickly as reason permits? Timeline goal? Will you lead?
I believe those are fair questions… or are you Monday-morning quarter-backing?
I actually agree that police unions have way too far weight in things… but the electeds and City managements have given them that power, as had the electorate… It’s “for Public Safety”, runs a close second to “it’s for the kids”, as a clarion call during election cycles, be it for funding or electing folk.
Think Walt Kelly, instead of just finger-pointing at Police and/or their unions… “we have met the enemy, and…”…
I do believe radical change, in a short period of time as to policing, will get me to do something I’ve never done… buy me a “scatter gun” and at least one hand-gun and lots of ammo… the evidence is overwhelming that when Police are “busy” (or dismantled?), there are elements in our population will consider that armed robbery, other crimes against persons, looting, vandalism, other mayhem is a call to “open season” on others, and their property…
DPD has openly sought after young white males to accost… even for stops for a bank robbery where both suspects were reported as ‘black’… there were/are ‘bad apples’ in Davis PD… true story… most eventually were cleared from the barrel… there is a concern that they may have just moved to another jurisdiction… Police departments need to undergo thoughtful examination, surgery… but a scalpel rather than a chainsaw would be the best instrument…
“Community policing” could include “open carry” for civilians… do we want that? Posse Commitus? (sp?)
Oh… just looking at media (TV news)… it is clear, in Minneapolis, there are “ideas”, but no “plans”… agree with that assessment… that something needs to change, that is clear, at least to me… timing and manner is crucial… and yet has not been clearly articulated…
I would suggest that Davis have this discussion as many other locations are going to have over the next few months and Minneapolis had yesterday.
or years . . . the way these thing tend to go is there is a big movement, then it gets turned over to a committee to be studied, the energy dies down, and then we sort of have a few symbolic gestures, and then pretty much dies. Government institutions are pretty tough to kill.
Not that these aren’t unprecendented times or that change isn’t needed. Call me cynical. “Alan, you’re cynical”. Yeah, with good reason.
That may not be the worst thing here either. Change is clearly needed. Being careful and deliberative is a good approach to bring more people on board.
How do you know what I think?
Ya THINK ?!!??
This is why I don’t understand your defense of the existence of public employee unions. Those should be dismantled along with police departments — they are a big part of the problem with police structure. I was in a public sector union, and I never agreed with a single thing they did or stand that they took — I left that ‘union’ the moment the supreme court changed the law a couple of years back. This would do our schools a lot of good as well.
I support some and not others.
I accept & appreciate that.
I personally believe the entire basic structure of PEUs to even exist is flawed. Note: I’m not against private unions (up to the point they influence government with error practices like PLA’s – one of the big reason the University can’t build affordable housing for its students, for example).
I agree with Alan on this. Public employee unions create more problems than they solve with the existence of civil service. They can essentially set it up so that they are negotiating with themselves. These unions also make government less responsive by putting a double layer of protection on civil servants’ jobs.
I strongly endorse private sector unions (except for with economically regulated industries which have many of the same problems as governments). In fact, I think that unions should be mandated for employees at all C corporations. Employees should be able to negotiate collectively with the same cohesiveness as shareholders.
Agree with Richard on this (ee gawd!) and have been saying it for decades.
Even FDR, the signer of the Fair Labor Standard act that really put the union into worker, was against public sector unionization.
If there is anyone out there who doesn’t believe in miracles, remember this day, 6-8-2020, when AM, RMc & JB all agreed on something.
The vision articulated by Steve Fletcher in Minneapolis is a common sense one:
Think about what you know about your neighborhood and how you might approach a dispute between neighbors as another neighbor. All joking aside, you would approach your neighbors with the respect that you would need to in order to continue to live side by side. That is how we want police officers to behave including saying “I’m sorry” if you transgress. When police don’t identify as community members, we are all “them” especially to those officers who aren’t the most evolved. I’m sure there are officers like that on our police force, but the real problem is what happens when groups of officers act together and let groupthink take over. So Minneapolis is worth watching and worth supporting in their quest to DO something other than offer prayers and condolences.
Ha, ha! I remember a City Council (community) meeting oh, maybe two years ago, where there were many speakers from an anti-police group speaking at Council over a then-recent incident. There were two armed-police present. Um . . . just in case?
Later that same evening, the City Council was announcing their decision on appealing Trackside and many Old East Davis neighbors were there to speak. I noticed the armed cops were still in the room, even though all the anti-police speakers had left after Public Comment.
I went up to one of the officers and asked, “why are you still here?”. His response: “We were asked to stay for this item”. Um . . . just in case . . . just in case . . . just in case what ???. . . one of the residents of Old East Davis goes crazy and starts stabbing people because the City was appealing the Trackside court ruling? Perhaps an Old East Davis riot? Someone might have pulled out a roll of toilet paper and tried to T.P. the chambers!
I’d still like to know WHO it was who asked the police to stay for that agenda item. Anyone want to fess up to that?
So no, we can’t stop having armed police at community meetings. Who knows what housed Davis neighbors are capable of? We must protect ourselves . . . from ourselves!
Remember Dallas Police Chief David Brown who said “We’re asking the cops to do too much.”
He went on:
“Police officers grapple with ‘societal failures’ over issues including mental health, drug addiction, and schooling that they’re not equipped to handle, Brown said.”
There are some things we ask the police to do that could be housed in other agencies. As one example DPD has a guy who’s job is to help get the homeless the services they need to get off the street. He does a great job. I support him and the job he does 100% but why is that housed in the police department?
Reimagining the role the police play in society at this time is an exercise worthy of engagement.
Agreed, but at this time, we are dealing with massive unemployment, teetering savings/investments, Covid fears (real or over-imagined)… folk are concerned about basic necessities, not theories, philosophies… but, we definitely should start… it is worthy of engagement, and important… we need to start… but I opine there is too much fear of things, to think that answers can be found in the near-term (1-3 years)… but I fully agree that the ‘exercise’ (and implementation) is very important…
You say “folks are concerned”… it seems to me this is a topic a considerable number of people are concerned about. Wouldn’t you agree?
I agree that we are asking the police to do too much.
A more accurate description for me is that we are asking the police to simultaneously do two things that require two mindsets. That is too much to ask for for most people.
In terms of job design, it is better to separate the combative duty (SWAT) and the non combative duty.
The “non combat” force would simply not be armed. So there is no fear of them using deadly force. The non combative force would only do voluntary arrests or ticketing.
The same officer cannot serve in both duties. An officer would either sworn as a combat officer or a non combat officer, and they need distinct uniforms and/or vehicles.
Ron,
“Police officers grapple with ‘societal failures’ over issues including mental health, drug addiction, and schooling that they’re not equipped to handle, Brown said.”
We are in a time that exemplifies the need to rethink our allocation of resources. The pandemic and subsequent enormous hit to our local and regional economy have demonstrated our lack of investment in the more basic needs of our community. Now is the time we need to be using our resources to provide the most basic needs of our residents, the need for food, housing, medical care , mental health servics & education even if some of that funding must be diverted from our traditional police force. I think of this as a preventive measure against increased social service needs of child and domestic abuse, both mental health needs and physical illness. More money spent on these basic needs will prevent future need for crime investigation, involvement with the judicial system, and potentially incarceration. Prevention is always less costly in the long term.
So we take the team that deals with homeless issues on the DPD and put them in a new bureaucracy. And that helps with police reform, HOW? Sounds like typical government response to a problem – rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. This usually ends up making things worse, because people jockey into power/pay positions and we now have more agencies/managers to fight amongst themselves over policy/funding.
Edward Deming took the academic-hatched theories of total quality management to the Japanese and it enabled them to take over the global automobile market. Subsequent methodologies like Zero Defects (ZD… one of my favorite wineries) and Six Sigma have built on the theories and practices… today all well-run corporations have adopted these concepts into their business practices. And all of these practices are all built on one key concept… that the system is best served when problems are solved up-stream. The 90-10 rule applies here… that it costs 10% to fix problems upstream and 90% if they are not caught until the end of the line.
So, I am encouraged at some of the “thinking” going on here, but at the same time worried that people leading this defund the police movement are ignorant and misguided in their motives and expectations.
I have been on this bandwagon for decades… that we are expecting the cops… the downstream end of the line… to deal with all the defects of the upstream process. The process is human development. Given all the mistakes we continue to make in the upstream process, we should be hiring many MORE cops and INCREASING their training and roles to deal with the myriad of defective, underdeveloped people occupying their precincts.
There is a problem though in that the need for security from a often violent inner city population makes for a very difficult challenge to hire the right people that can do everything needed for that required diversity of skill. Frankly, it is impossible. Hire a caring empathetic personality and they will degrade into PTSD having to deal with all the mess of humanity. Hire people that can deal with it, and they often be detached from feeling… and maybe just to preserve their own sanity. It is not unlike what our infantry soldiers go through… given a job to stop violence that threatens to harm others requires a certain detachment… or else PTSD and suicides increase.
It is impossible and it angers me to continue to get the criticism from the people living in their safe exclusive communities that cops can be all of these things… while these same people continue to vote for politicians and policies that keep making the cops’ job more difficult.
If we want to prevent utter chaos after reducing the number of cops and the scope of their responsibility, then we need to make changes upstream. And the primary resource to address all these upstream defects in the human development continuum is the public school system. And, in addition to this, and connected to this, we need to enhance the economic prospects for the people living in these communities.
Frankly, because I am, I think we are missing the big picture here. The black urban community is a mess. It is a social mess. It is an economic mess. And both of these contribute to being a mess of crime. The cops are called to clean up the mess, and a small percentage of them are detached, angry jerks that abuse their power and hurt and kill people unnecessarily. And some are racist. Cops are just people and people are imperfect. Just like teachers are just people and teachers are imperfect. And both can do a lot of damage… it is just that the teachers provide the bigger opportunity for the lowest cost to help prevent the downstream problems.
So the national protests should be to defund the public school system in these communities and to rebuild them into a new modern marvel that actually does the job of developing students to launch into a mainstream life of happiness and success.
George Floyd had a significant crime record… one of the results of this non mainstream culture that he lived in. There is no-doubt that this impacted his ability to find meaningful employment. There is potential that we will learn that he and his killer had some relationship and/or business dealings given that they both worked at the same night club with some history of shady business. But he was raised in a public housing complex in a high-crime neighborhood in Houston.
His athletic abilities helped him get into college, but not enough to sustain him after he dropped out. Floyd’s father and mother divorced, and his father moved away and had another two children with other women. At least George Floyd had some interaction with a father. In 2015, 77% of black children were born to unwed mothers.
It is interesting that the number of black babies born to unwed mothers has always been higher that all other racial groups. But it exploded between 1970 and 1990 (36% to 68%)… the impressionable developmental time of Floyd’s life.
The point here is to ask… what are the gaps in early childhood development in a given community given the statistic and trends for that community… and what is needed to help supplement those gaps to increase the probability that the child develops into a mainstream functional adult with all the mainstream access to economic and social opportunity?
Or we can keep scapegoating cops for all those defects we fail to resolve earlier in the process.
Completely agreed that the job design is bad.
Yes it is possible to hire or train someone who can switch between being forceful and caring freely. But why would a community expect or design a job like that, when it could simply be two different jobs?
Consider all the training that can be saved, the more kinds of people who can be hired, and the amount of confusion and misunderstanding (and deaths) separating the job roles can save…
One reason is that walking a beat in these areas is a dangerous job duty, and these different jobs, to be effective, would need to walk a beat.
I would consider patrol or walking a beat a combat role.
The reason is that the moment the a violent suspect discovered that someone is watching, they could attack the witness.
But the deterrent part of the job could be done by security cameras, or a sign saying there are security cameras.
JB, Frankly, this is one of the more reasonable, level-headed and non-attacking pieces you have written, articulating your economic/social values in solving the issues as an alternative to progressive solutions. One criticism: “black babies born to unwed mothers” wasn’t the best phrasing.
Thank you AM. I was less triggered while writing.
I wrote “In 2015, 77% of black children were born to unwed mothers.”
How would you suggest I phrase that?
Oh… never mind. I see the sentence below. Agree that it could have been phrased better.
Cool. Just wanted to point that out, in case you ever wanted to post this piece in real media 😉
“Seeking Mr. Right”?
It is easier to trust a person won’t hurt you when they are not armed with a gun, constantly watching whether you are going to pull out a gun, and is ready to shoot you if they think that you are pulling out a gun.
Here’s your real story, as cities descend further into chaos. These people will remain “liberal in theory”, while moving away (from the chaos):
Same thing that’s happened repeatedly, over time.
But this time, aided by (remote) technology. And, the communities that they’re moving to don’t need nearly as much police, “community-based assistance”, or whatever else the terminology is.
Only those who actually need assistance (or those advocating for them) will be “left behind” to deal with this mess.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-08/wealthy-havens-lure-homebuyers-in-mad-rush-from-san-francisco?srnd=prognosis
“White Flight II”
For those not willing to look at the article:
I would add the constant protests (not just related to this issue), to the “list of reasons”. Add de-funding of police, if for no reason other than fear.
Some people just want to be able to go to the hardware store, without a constant ordeal. Perhaps even with “parking” (god forbid).
Or, hiking in a beautiful spot.
And – those able to do so, will.
Correct – And hearing from many of my friends that are police or that are connected to law enforcement that they are being warned that their lives are in danger and their families are in danger and their children are in danger.
And each one that is harmed I will place responsibility at the feet of my leftist friends and acquaintances that have joined in support of this BS attack on the police for politics.
The Minneapolis clowncil is just a reflection of the whole based on current behavior. I expected better.
One thing for sure. Biden is toast thanks to this. Defunding the cops!? Even though he came out with a statement (written for him) that he is not in support of it, he has a long list of statements that contradict it. The radical left is eating the Democrat party and rank and file Democrats hate Trump so much they are applauding it. Ya’ll can think about this while you rage and Ginsburg and possibly Breyer get replaced by Trump.
And Democrats also own the shutdown from the virus… the draconian killing of small business and bankrupting their employees while the same Democrats lauded the protests. Now the CDC is reporting that the were WAY off on the mortality rates. WAY off. And the riots and looting were likely caused more because of that than the convenient media storm from the George Floyd incident… and of course not much on the murder of Tim Fitch.
Wake up!
Jeff, here’s to hoping that the DNC runs on a disband and defund the police platform.
Pardon, who? Do you mean David Dorn?
LOL. Yes, David Dorn. Darn… I had another article up and had name amnesia.
Minneapolis city council member Lisa Bender saying calling the police when someone is breaking into your home is a privilege and the police might actually cause more harm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idw83kGmwzw
If you read her Tweet stream: https://twitter.com/lisabendermpls/status/1268282408102580226
It appears she actually calling out white people who are calling for defunding the police – arguing if they are going to call for it now and then bail on them in a few months.
Ummmm no, maybe that’s how she’s now trying to backtrack what she actually stated on CNN.
She ran on a platform of a police free future when she ran for office in 2017.
Clearly you didn’t read it – it was before the video statement not after.
Twitter is down right now, so you’re right I didn’t read it.
But look and listen to the interview, it’s her own words.
You can’t deny what she stated.
I listened to it. What she’s saying is that you have an expectation that when you call the police, that they are going to show up and handle things properly, and protect you. And that’s not the case for a lot of people. People in the cities, people in communities of color, already do not call the police in that situation because they do not trust that the police will protect them rather than make the situation worse.
Says you. Most people of color call the police when someone is breaking in their home, just like white people do.
Actually that’s what she said.
But I really suggest you do some reading up on the topic
Here’s a recent article on blacks trust of police – link
Here’s an article on racially motivated calls to police – link
There is a lot more to unpack here.
NPR: “For many Americans, it goes without saying that the police are critical in maintaining public safety. Have an emergency? Call the police. But many others — especially black people and poor people — have long countered that the police pose more of a threat to their safety than a boon. See a police officer? Walk in the other direction.”
Nothing new about these differences in perspective.
This is Pew from 2019:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/21/from-police-to-parole-black-and-white-americans-differ-widely-in-their-views-of-criminal-justice-system/
And 2015:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/28/blacks-whites-police/
I suspect that this effort may ultimately lead to communities that are more segregated, than they are now. Especially with technology allowing more people to move away from city centers.
As those folks leave, they may not care as much regarding police or community services in those areas “left behind”. Especially if the police aren’t wanted in those areas, in the first place.
Conversely, I suspect that police will be maintained in communities that aren’t particularly troubled. Which could facilitate even more segregation.
Society has been talking about increasing community services in troubled areas for years. This is nothing new. Now, whether or not this actually happens as a result of shifting funds away from police departments (and its effectiveness if this does occur) is a different question.
But one thing that can happen is an increase in organized crime/gangs in troubled areas, in the absence of any other structured authority. There are entire countries that are controlled by such elements.
I find it weird – the reaction here is as though the current policing system works – why do you believe that? I cited all of the data in the article as to why it doesn’t work well and could be restructured to work better.
I didn’t say that the current system works well.
However, I suspect that the primary problems in troubled communities doesn’t really have much to do with policing.
Now, whether or not increasing community services will occur, or whether or not it will help is a valid question.
“However, I suspect that the primary problems in troubled communities doesn’t really have much to do with policing.”
But the question isn’t the primary problem. The question is whether police are making the problems better or worse and the folks on here primarily are viewing this through the lens of their own experience – which makes sense. But that’s not the experience that many people of color have.
I’m not disagreeing with you, David.
Except for the importance of the “primary” problems, and their possible solutions.
Importance is relative. I think solutions need wide discussion.
This is where I think the effort will ultimately fail (e.g., beyond the Vanguard).
Ultimately, the solutions usually have to arise from (or in conjunction with) the communities, themselves. The solutions might require funding that simply won’t be available, externally. (Even with police defunding.)
And, those not wanting to deal with the problems will continue leaving.
Importance is not “relative”. Police aren’t the primary force holding troubled communities back. Police responses are a “reaction” to what occurs.
Here we disagree.
We do, though we might agree that current police practices aren’t helping, and sometimes make the situation much worse.
Ultimately, there has to be something more “positive” to lift up troubled communities, other than simply removing the police.
Again, removing police (on its own) can result in a vacuum of authority, leading to more problems. Again, there’s entire countries that provide examples of that.
I think policing and the overall criminal justice system is a much bigger. The proposal isn’t btw, to remove police. It’s to change the structure of policing and where funding is going.
I’m aware of that, but question the ability/effectiveness of whatever is (supposedly) planned to replace it.
And, that’s a lot more challenging of a topic, than simply de-funding the police and dismantling the criminal justice system.
Again, these are troubled communities to begin with. (As you noted, one cannot judge the “experience” of those living in those communities, from afar. Other than looking at statistics, news, etc. And, those statistics show real problems.)
I guess the key question is: why are we going to continue something that is not working because we are afraid that what replaces it won’t work either. That seems to me a recipe for lack of action.
I will put forth another “prediction”, as well.
I believe that (despite their size), the massive protests will ultimately dissipate, and that troubled communities will be left on their own, as usual. Perhaps with the police being somewhat more careful, and/or with limited shifting of resources away from police departments.
There will continue being at least “two” Americas – one that’s troubled, and one that isn’t. (Admittedly simplified, here.) With technology facilitating that trend.
And, the non-troubled communities will maintain their police departments, as they don’t view them as the “enemy”.
Good question. If you’re asking what I think, I believe it’s worth exploring. Looks like there’s some communities that will be testing it.
Although I maintain some pessimism (based upon what I’ve observed, over the years), I’m hoping that this might be part of a broader solution.
Whatever is put in place is going to need the support of the communities, themselves.
I’m going to reword this, as follows:
Whatever is put in place is going to need to be driven by the impacted communities, themselves.
Ultimately, no one else will do it for them (my prediction, again). (Other than a short-term, widespread reaction to some of the videos we’ve seen.)
Again… I cannot see what David writes while being logged in.
But it is time for him to be specific in what he things will work better. “Restructured” is too nebulous and too abstract to be useful. What does he want to see happen and how/why does he think it will help improve the lives of people in these poor, violent and crime-ridden black communities?
This is a common problem with all of those on the defund the police bandwagon… they have no specifics. This indicates that their aim is political and not actually helpful for those they claim they are advocating for. I find that weird.
Jeff
David gave the example of Camden successfully restructuring is law enforcement system. You need to provide a specific critique of that proposal rather than claim that David hasn’t done what he has in fact done.
So David is recommending the Camden model?
Looks like murders are up in Camden, but they are reporting a drop in violent crime. It is hard to tell if that drop is any different than the over all urban crime-rate drop that appears to be linked to economics, but at least it is positive.
So David is advocating disbanding the Davis PD and having the Yolo County Serif take care of it? I can get behind that if it will save some money and still provide good law enforcement service.
To be clear – Camden is one approach. They disbanded and created a new one. There are other approaches as well – redirecting resources and the like.
This comment section is getting old, but been thinking that if we are going to call the police racist because of the number of cop-black negative encounters, then we need to put teachers in the same category. And we need to add that teachers are misandrists too.
Teachers discipline blacks and boys at much higher rates than they do every other group. So there is only one explanation based on the “logic” of the left… that teachers are racial and gender biased.
Also thinking about the actual statistics of cop-black encounters relative to the crimes rates by race. Seems that calling law enforcement racist is like calling all football players racist because of the high number of fights that break out involving black players. That’s right… Colin Kaepernick must be a racist based on this left “logic”.
Worth noting: you are the first person in the comment section to use the term racist.
It might be easier for some to grasp the concept of a world without police if the origins and purpose of organized police forces is revisited. The first publicly funded, organized police force with full-time officers on duty was created in Boston in 1838. A large shipping and commercial center, businesses had been hiring people to protect their property and safeguard the transport of goods from the port of Boston to other places. These clever merchants came up with a way to save money by transferring to the cost of maintaining a police force to citizens by arguing that it was for the collective good.
Not coincidentally in the South, police patrols were organized to retrieve runaway slaves. During the Civil War, the Confederate military was the primary form of law enforcement in the South, but during Reconstruction, many local sheriffs performed the same functions as the earlier slave patrols, enforcing segregation and the disenfranchisement of freed slaves.
It’s no coincidence that by the late 1880s, all major U.S. cities had police forces. Businessmen in the late 19th century had both connections to politicians and an image of the kinds of people most likely to go on strike and disrupt their workforce. Fears of labor-unions and of large waves of Catholic, Irish, Italian, German, and Eastern European immigrants, with different customs of dress and speech, drove the call for the preservation of law and order, as determined by dominant financial interests. The police captains and sergeants for each precinct were hand picked by the local political party ward leader, who often owned taverns or ran street gangs that intimidated voters. They used police to harass opponents of that particular political party, and provided payoffs for officers to turn a blind eye to allow illegal drinking, gambling and prostitution.
All the while convincing the working class that the police were a necessity for public safety.
Today, these tools of the robber barons and slave owners patrol schools, hospitals, and public transit. They roam the hallways in housing projects and apartment complexes. They are stand guard in welfare offices, chain stores, movie theaters and public parks to enforce white supremacy and protect property and commerce over human life. Their purpose: To serve capitalism, disciplining “civilians”(aka “the other”) into accepting deteriorating living conditions, reproducing their social difference and isolation, and punishing any and all dissent against this status quo of divisiveness, alienation and exploitation.
The instances where they save someone’s life or stop a crime from happening are so rare as to be insignificant. Their degree of corruption is beyond reform . We must defund them in order to disempower, disarm and disband the most dangerous gang in America.
Oh Gawd. Police… law enforcement… have/has existed since law was invented.
Law enforcement tends to be busier in places where there are a lot of laws and a lot of law breaking…. mostly Democrat-run states.
Police just enforce the law. They don’t make the law. Why isn’t the ire of the left turned toward law-makers that make the law? Law-makers tend to be attorneys that harvest the benefit of a greater book of laws that they then are required to prosecute, defend and adjudicate… for billable hours.
Eric Gardner was detained by the police because law makers criminalized the illegal selling of cigarettes… because the legal sale generates a lot of tax money… tax money that the law-makers rely on to pay the public sector unions that are the voting and money source to keep Democrats in office.
If the law did not exist, Eric Gardner would not have died at the hands of rough cops.
See how that works?
Not true. This is an overly simplistic statement that deflects from the issue of racist police brutality that is rampant throughout the nation. The history of policing is far more complicated and had as its primary goal the protection of private economic interests, not protection of the public, particularly the working class. E.g., https://plsonline.eku.edu/sites/plsonline.eku.edu/files/the-history-of-policing-in-us.pdf
Again, not true. As the case of George Floyd is only a recent egregious example, police do not merely enforce the law; they all to frequently serve as judge, jury, and executioner to exact their own brutal extra-legal racist justice, most particularly in interacting with black citizens.
Jeff’s comment is largely wrong. First of all, he should learn the history of policing in this country and its linkage to slavery. Second, he should understand that police have discretion – they choose which laws to enforce and when. They also can exceed their authority. Jeff, I’m sorry but I find a lot of your comments extremely simplistic if not naive here.
Exactly. The tie to slavery illustrates the fundamental purpose of the institution—to protect private “property” interests. The comments are more than naive; they are pernicious because they are antithetical to acknowledging and addressing the real issues.
I find this to be a highly offensive statement intended to excuse the inexcusable.
“I find this to be a highly offensive statement intended to excuse the inexcusable.”
+1
“Jeff, I’m sorry but I find a lot of your comments extremely simplistic if not naive here.”
Intentionally so, imo.
I knew I could flush out the radical cop haters and deniers that their beloved non-cop government bureaucrats, politicians and lawyers have no hand at all in the carnage. Thanks for showing us your stripes fellas. I appreciate the directness and honesty.
Me: Police… law enforcement… have/has existed since law was invented.
Eric: Not true. This is an overly simplistic statement that deflects from the issue of racist police brutality that is rampant throughout the nation.
The Habeas Corpus Act 1679, passed under King Charles II. So I was wrong… policing took another 60 years. But Eric, David and Hobbs are all wrong that policing started in the US south.
Me: If the law did not exist, Eric Gardner would not have died at the hands of rough cops.
Eric: I find this to be a highly offensive statement intended to excuse the inexcusable.
New York’s cigarette tax FY1996 was $.56 per pack. FY2012 it was $4.35 It was, and still is, the highest in the nation. Thus creating an attractive nuisance for black market sales.
Me = Right. Eric = Entitled to his own feeling but not his own facts.
What David said: ” First of all, he should learn the history of policing in this country and its linkage to slavery.”
What Jeff apparently read: “But Eric, David and Hobbs are all wrong that policing started in the US south.”
Notice that’s not what I said. I said there was a linkage to slavery and you can read the historical links I posted below. If you know your history, slave patrols were not limited to the south.
So many lies, so many half-truths, so little time…
Dismissal of Jeff B’s comment,
Is a good starting place… look to “laws” instituted in Mosaic law… including those calling for community stoning to death, adulteresses, homosexuals, caught in the act… guess that what would now be called ‘community’, or ‘mob’ policing… maybe brought to the priests, but in a lot of cases, the ‘community/mob’, were accusers, juries, judges, and executioners… it was ‘policing’… fact…
In ‘middle ages’ there were Sheriffs, empowered to arrest and often execute those who violated the property or taxing ‘rights’ of the Crown… or other laws, including murder… which, by definition then, was “the law of the land”. Policing, also using a modern term, Sheriff…
Policing in the US… police were established in PA, NJ, NY, NH, VT, ME to protect the rights of slave owners? Pleeeeze… untrue and incredulous…
So many half-truths, conflating, lies… but Jeff is right… ‘policing’, with all its sordid history, has existed since there were laws, no matter how one wants to attribute it to modern/semi-modern protection of slavery and/or other property ‘rights’… it does have a sordid history…
But it has existed many thousands of years, and has its great moments, and sordid ones…
Slave Patrols: An Early Form of American Policing
The racist roots of American policing: From slave patrols to traffic stops
NPR Discussion
A Brief History of Slavery and the Origins of American Policing
There is also an interesting connection between prisons and slavery. Slavery by Another Name by Douglas Blackmon is a very interesting read.
Thanks Bill. I am frankly disappointed with these fellas getting all wee weed up over a factual and rational post.
But I probably should have qualified that I meant English law… the stuff we practice here.
David:
Okay… I looked at these are that are all really opinion pieces from people and sources with dubious credentials and an axe to grind.
These were the woke places at the time… the north… the side that won the civil war to defeat slavery. I would bet that many a northern police officer fought in the civil war against the south.
But this all frosts me nonetheless. If we are going to impinge the character of today’s police over this history, then it stands to reason that we would also impinge the character of today’s Democrats over their history of being the KKK.
I am really tired of liberal social justice activists continuing to cite historical context of racism as having ANY materially relevant connection to the present.
https://mental-health-matters.com/past-vs-present-in-borderline-personality-disorder/
You really read my links carefully… Professor at a Norwich, Professor of History at the Kennedy School, another Professor at Eastern Kentucky University. I’m impressed Jeff.
I thought this NPR podcast released today gave some interesting policy perspectives on policing:
Policing Is An ‘Avatar Of American Racism,’ Marshall Project Journalist Says
Again, an intolerable discussion by the extreme sides pointing to alternate histories that back up their set of facts that support their politics.
I looked into this long ago when a friend with progressive views told me of the ‘police having it’s roots in slavery’ narrative. Even Snopes, which is somewhere between center and left in their fact checking, gave a layered history that included the Southern Slave Patrols and the Public Constable in the North, both as roots of modern policing.
So you’re all right, and you’re all wrong.
And isn’t the real issue: “What is policing today?”
And what is the stick-up-the-butt about protection of property? We work most of our waking hours to acquire money for food and property, and businesses invest in property. If property is not protected, who is going to work, or invest, if everything gets taken away or destroyed by lawless forces? And wasn’t it JH who called the police with the intention to have them come and protect his property? (without success). The alternative is we protect our property ourselves — but then you have more citizens with guns, and vigilante gangs (inner-city drug gangs, KKK). And then justice is served outside of law, and best served cold.
And what is the stick-up-the-butt about cops on public transit? Police on board and at stations are absolutely necessary. One of the reasons BART was losing riders (pre-Covid) is the very-real perception that it isn’t safe, after several very public incidents including a gang of teenagers jumping the fare gates and swarming a train stealing cell phones, laptops, bags, etc. Sac RT is so scary at times outside of commute hours that guards are a necessity or only the lawless would ride.
Now, BART was experimenting with adding unarmed ‘ambassadors’ when the Covid hit, and that very well could have worked but we won’t know for awhile. And Lord knows the BART police force is a candidate for a major overhaul or re-thinking with the incidents they have had. I wish we had got to see if unarmed ‘ambassadors’ would be both effective for the riders and less intimidating/triggering yet effective in deterring the lawless.
I think I’m stuck on a few points Alan and maybe you can help me.
In terms of the history, I think there is a key point that is missed here in the evolution of law enforcement – one reason people of color especially blacks do not trust the police is that they have never trusted the police. Police were the enforcement arm of slavery, the enforcement arm of Jim Crow, they failed to protect blacks in the north, and then you have the era of mass incarceration since the early 70s. I was raised that police are my friends in a nice little safe white community, but at what point in time did blacks view police as their friends. That’s why it’s relevant.
Second point is the assumption is that police are protecting us and without police or the threat of police things would get worse. But that assumes that police are effective in what they do and if you look at the stats, they really aren’t at least most of the time.
Third, you go why the tick up the butt about cops on public transit, probably because there’s a history there and it didn’t start with Oscar Grant. There are people who are triggered by the site of a cop.
The fair question is where do we go and that’s what I was hoping to have more discussion on.
That makes sense. Although, you say ‘blacks’ like all black people feel that way about police. Why do you lump all blacks together on this point? Do you mean inner-city black people? I know black people who don’t, who are OK with police. Though for the most part, as a group, they do say they pulled over an awful lot.
I know its that way whenever there is a dearth of law enforcement. This happened here the last few months when no one was doing anything about the meth-addict / bike-thieves who were taking over the area. The police did little for awhile, and finally did something. But without police it was like Beyond Thunderdome around here. So you’d say it’d be better without police? Only if neighbors could carry guns and get rid of the meth-addict / bike-thieves on our own. As it is, we would end up in jail rather than those
What does that even mean? What stats proving what? You have stats that show crime would be lower without police? Please, do share . . .
But as I pointed out, without some sort of presence, public transit isn’t safe or at least isn’t perceived as safe, which means many people won’t ride without a police presence. Public transit that isn’t safe to ride is not public transit, it’s transit for the lawless and the desperate. So which is more important, usable public transit, or dangerous public transit, but no one gets triggered?
As for where we go from here . . . probably a lot more of the same, with a few experiments in trying to do things better. If we’re lucky, a fundamental change or two and not too many experiments that just make things worse.
Alan – I don’t mean all, I mean trends and probably more urban than suburban, even my middle class educated black friends are much more skeptical about police than most whites.
That’s the debate – do police matter and you are arguing yes, but others argue no. And then the question – how much police? You may need to have the possibility of police to hold people in line, but there is no proof that the more police you have, the less crime there is.
How would we have stats that show less crime without police unless we had an example. We have stats that show number doesn’t lower crime.
Do we have stats on police on transit versus not? Do those police have to be armed?
Everyone opposing change seems to be of the belief that change will make things worse, no one seems to accept that things are intolerably bad right now and therefore what we are doing isn’t working?
Embracing change for the sake of change, is idiotic, IMO… focused change to remedy problems/issues, is wise…
But the ‘what if we did this, we haven’t tried this before, let’s see what happens, it might be good’ crowd, I just can’t support… call me a skeptic… I care not…
I believe that continuing to do something that’s not working is insane. So there’s that.
Starting to understand your points, David (et al.). Nat Turner was a righteous dude, and the authorities behaved very badly… (1831)
Shakespeare wrote a line for one of his plays, “first, kill all the lawyers”…
Nat Turner apparently had another priority…
Gilbert and Sullivan (Mikado) has “I’ve got a little list…”
Time for “lists” (like Nixon’s “enemies list”) to be shredded… as another poster has mainly opined, (not supposed to name names, under VG policies), violence is not the answer, it is a big part of the problem… whether to people of color, people of non-color (?), or to images (Ghandi, Sutter… will MLK Jr be next? [he was not without personal flaws]), and violence to property, designed to steal booze, and electronics, mainly (Ferguson) [overwhelming by ghouls/miscreants, NOT protestors for justice]..
FWIW…
One thing I expect related to all this protest over history connected to racism and black oppression.
If we are to purge all vestiges of slavery and racism, it seems to me the most obvious target must be the Democrat Party. It stood for slavery and segregation and birthed the KKK. Any sporadically redeeming policies of the more recent past are of no relevance. It’s in that party’s DNA, as they say. Indeed, only a few decades ago, it chose a former klansman as its Senate leader, without objection from today’s so-called resistance — most of whose “members” are Democrats or will vote for Democrats. Their incoherence and hypocrisy aside, purge their party.
I would not be surprised if the mob of campus-trained anarchists and agitators figures this out and turns on their handlers as a historical icon of slavery just like they have turned on the cops.
That is a protest I would join.
You’re ignoring the history here. Democratic Party supported slavery and coalesced in the south. But then you are ignoring the 1876 elections, the deal that Hayes created, the fact that the court in 1896 was dominated by Northern Republicans and still came down w Plessy. That was pretty much the end of Republican domination of black issues. New Deal starts to shift northern blacks to the Democrats. And then 1960 through 1968 ended the movement. Then the South realigned to the Republicans and the Republicans became far more conservative on race, Democrats in the south retired or switched parties. Democrats moved from a southern dominated party pre-1932 to a northern dominated party post.
You’re ignoring the history here. Indeed, you are, David
The Democrats were heavily split on slavery (there were two Democrats, opposing each other, in the election of 1860 (main reason why Lincoln got elected!)… yet, even the Republicans in favor of abolition, generally did not favor blacks voting, much less becoming neighbors/co-workers, friends… they were every much as racist, but abhorred slavery, and the South
After Lincoln was murdered, Republicans were far more interested in punishing the South, than supporting freed blacks… the northern Republicans did not invite blacks to be in the north, but insisted on forcing black legislatures in the south… name two states who had black legislators in the north (“Union States”), 1860- 1880 … I dare ‘ya!
Lincoln’s Cabinet was primarily Republicans… yet the famous saw is that Lincoln asked his cabinet whether they approved of, or opposed the Emancipation Proclamation (which, technically, was an ‘executive order’, not law)… supposedly all 8 of his cabinet voted ‘nay’… supposedly Lincoln paused, then announced, “8 nays, one aye… the ayes have it.”
Remember that Lincoln issued the proclamation more to recruit blacks for Union forces, and to foment insurrection by blacks in the south… not for “liberation”… slavery was still legal in States that were not in active rebellion… an inconvenient fact.
So, both Jeff’s and your arguments are not supported by history.
And Lincoln’s solution was to send former slaves back to Africa. The radical Republicans were more interested in civil rights, but blacks largely got sold out for political expediency in late 1800s. Just read a pretty interesting book on Plessy which tracked John Marshall Harlan, Henry Brown and Albion Tourgee from the civil war to Plessy. very interesting read. Harlan started as a slave owner in Kentucky and was the only vote against Plessy while Brown wrote the Plessy decision even though he was a fairly liberal northern Republican.
It was also the solution proposed by an earlier president, who was elected as a “Democratic-Republican”, a precursor of “democrats”… successful enough to give an African country its name, with the capital City named after that president…
That’s kinda happening; in the sense that ‘traditional liberal’ and ‘modern progressive’ thinking is probably far more different in ideology than party Democrats and Republicans. This is tearing the Dems apart as much as Libertarian, Traditional Republican and Evangelical factions are tearing the Repubs apart.
I’d join that protest too (post Covid-19) – anything to destroy the traditional political parties.
In my opinion, based on observations, the current two main parties, by their own behaviors, are trending towards the point of fulfilling Barry McGuire’s 1965 song…
In CA, Republicans have fallen from 2nd to 3rd (Statewide registrations), but the Democrats are on the same trajectory, just slower…
A protest effort will accelerate that, to be sure… I’m content to watch as both are approaching their respective “eves”…
Clarification… Barry McGuire did not write the song… but his version is the ‘best’, IMHO… 55 years prophetic… and not just on the Dem-Rep thingy…
“campus-trained anarchists and agitators”
I missed that imaginary class in the imaginary course catalog of The Jeff Boone College of the Colon.