The goal of the defund movements is to balkanize police duties so that the people tasked with these duties have appropriate training, weaponry (if any), etc, to place more money into community development and fighting poverty, and to increase civilian oversight, since there have been decades and decades of attempts to reform the police and it does not work.
Without trying to pick sides, the argument would be that these redistributive programs will not enhance public safety but instead will make things worse. For those who can afford it, the safety "gap" will be addressed by private security forces, gated communities, or simply re-locating (and taking their tax dollars with them).
And there's an opposite argument to that, that the police would be able to properly allocate the appropriate officers to where they're needed.
Right now, officers are trained and conditioned in a way that keeps their gun at the forefront of responses. Especially in Minneapolis, where--as of six years ago--96% of the MPD were not from Minneapolis, but commuted from surrounding suburbs, there's an "us vs them" occupier mentality that results from not being a public servant in your own neighborhood. Many MPD cops openly talk about Minneapolis being akin to entering a warzone.
If we had people properly trained in deescalating non-violent or domestic situations, who people would feel confident in calling because they wouldn't be worried about somehow getting shot, the armed officers would be able to focus their efforts on the situations requiring their presence.
It's a complicated situation. But it's been shown time and again that our system isn't necessarily working, and it would be beneficial to look at other approaches and countries for guidance.
It's crazy to me that there's no actual police education in the US, but on the other hand, the police where I'm from, where a 3 year degree from a police school is required, the police are constantly understaffed, and especially the districts suffer. Especially in the US where education isn't free, I can't see that approach be anything other than a disaster.
"Defund the police" doesn't mean "tax break for citizens". It means reallocating those funds, which emphasizes training.
There's very little oversight of how the police spend their money, which leads to instances like Snoqualmie purchasing a mine-resistant armored vehicle instead of investing in training.
As a way of communicating "spend more money training police", "defund the police" utterly fails. And the really extreme advocates really do mean "defund the police" as in no policing or police force at all.
Stop playing word games. I'll continue to advocate for specific police reforms that are plainly described and that I have some hope of understanding what is being proposed.
I won't advocate via the mantra of "defund the police" because, as I pointed out, no one agrees on what that means. This distortion of language makes it very difficult to have rational discussion. Witness all the problems caused by not understanding that "protesting" and "rioting" are actually different activities and that "mostly peaceful" is not a valid synonym for "frequently violent".
The vocabulary of critical social justice theory is another minefield of words used in novel ways. Lots of people don't understand this (including myself until I started researching this recently) so you get very divisive interactions going on because people are talking past each other.
> Without trying to pick sides, the argument would be that these redistributive programs will not enhance public safety but instead will make things worse.
I see no reason that redistributing their duties related to things like traffic infractions, non-criminal calls, property crime, medical emergencies, etc. would do anything but help public safety, as cops are not particularly good at most of those things. They lack the training and professional culture to handle them appropriately. Rather than give them yet more money to train in such a wide variety of situations, we should have actual professionals that know how to handle, say, mental health crises respond to them, and only involve police as a backup to them at most.
Also, the vast majority of crime is related to poverty. Even gang violence is a product of poverty and the drug war, both of which can be addressed through policy and reallocation of funds.
> For those who can afford it, the safety "gap" will be addressed by private security forces, gated communities, or simply re-locating (and taking their tax dollars with them).
I wouldn't mind this much, as anyone interested in using their capital to do such things are also meddling unhelpfully in local politics.
With reduced policing and increased chaos and rioting it seems logical that those with means will employ private security forces.
It's the same reason guns are selling like crazy, with new gun owners at all-time high.
I fear a situation where because of empathy the state has given up the monopoly on force by essentially allowing violent riots that destroy individuals livelihoods, and those individuals will look for some other way to secure themselves and their property.
> With reduced policing and increased chaos and rioting it seems logical that those with means will employ private security forces.
Why do you believe chaos and rioting will be the outcome of reworking policing? That "chaos" and riots are a direct result of the status quo of violent and often racist policing.
I disagree. The chaos and riots are a direct result of weak leadership. When the mayor and governor practically declare a "purge" this is what you get. This would happen in any place and any time in which the government stands down and tells the civilian population they are on their own. We've been locked down for months and it seems like the only thing that's legal to do is burn down buildings and rob stores.
This will only be ended with overwhelming violence. Either the state needs to step up and accept their role/responsibility as the monopoly holder on violence, or I fear the general population will. And if the average joe does it, it'll be in the form of mass killings at rallies, which no one wants.
There were rioters armed in various ways. A favorite was a long and narrow skateboard, because denying that it is intended as a weapon works pretty well. Business owners, homeowners, and their friends were caught in the middle, and typically armed with rifles similar to the AR-15.
Rioters chased a guy down the street. He fell. The rioters were soon upon him. He shot at one while on the ground, and got hit by a skateboard. He then managed to stand (this I feel is where the biased video editing will start) and fire at the skateboard attacker who was coming back for another attack. That shot, at a range of 1 to 5 feet, turned the attacker's biceps into a mist that is visible in the video. (other footage shows a fist-sized chunk missing) Way off on the right side of the video another armed rioter apparently has second thoughts, stopping his approach and backing off a bit. Yet another rioter doesn't seem to get the message, continues approaching, and is shot. The shooter then carefully walks down the street.
Meanwhile, in a different location but close enough that the shots from one video can be heard in the other, there is another shooting with a similar gun. This time the rioter suffers a head shot or two, then drops down with whole-body spasms that suggest brain stem destruction. I could see a bullet wound on the side of the head, but it looked like a grazing wound. I think there was another that hit the neck or entered a nostril. The nose was bleeding, and the neck was hidden by a scarf.
The shooter was the same in both instances. The extra shots are of unknown origin. The head shot, that I described second, was the first instance.
The rioters were dumb enough to corner a man with a gun. One did the silly "come on, shoot me" thing and got shot in the head. The rioters then chased the shooter a very long ways, until he fell to the ground.
The guy who got shot in the biceps was attempting to use a pistol to execute the guy on the ground. I couldn't make it out, but the biceps loser had a cell phone in his left hand and a pistol in his right hand. He held both hands up as if to surrender, using that to get closer to the guy on the ground. At this point the guy on the ground had killed 2 people, but he held back. The biceps loser suddenly brought his hands down to fire the pistol. It was a clear attempt to execute the guy on the ground, who then shot off the biceps that was on the arm holding the pistol.
The shooter showed lots of restraint. In numerous cases, he pointed his rifle at potential attackers, but he didn't shoot if they backed off. Legally, he's going to be fine, but I wouldn't be surprised if a politically-motivated trial happens.
His score is 4 rioters shot, 3 of whom died. The biceps loser, who tried to perform an execution, will almost certainly live. The arm might be saved, but that is uncertain.
My overall impression is that it looked like a zombie movie. WTF. The rioters just kept coming, seemingly unaware that in real life you can actually get mangled or killed. The rioters are insane. It's interesting that they scream "medic" when injured. They don't scream "police" or "call 911" or "help" or anything normal. It's like they imagine themselves to be soldiers or in a video game.
Incidentally, the shooter has been arrested and reportedly will be charged with 1 count of 1st degree murder (intentional homicide is what it's called in Illinois).
They're literally a response to George Floyd being murdered. The straw that broke the camel's back. Every single protest has chanting of the high-profile cases of black people being murdered by police.
> The chaos and riots are a direct result of weak leadership. When the mayor and governor practically declare a "purge" this is what you get.
I have no idea what this is referring to.
> This would happen in any place and any time in which the government stands down and tells the civilian population they are on their own.
When the government stands down from what? Civilian population on their own for what? I have so many questions.
> We've been locked down for months and it seems like the only thing that's legal to do is burn down buildings and rob stores.
Are you trying to make this about the pandemic?
> This will only be ended with overwhelming violence. Either the state needs to step up and accept their role/responsibility as the monopoly holder on violence, or I fear the general population will. And if the average joe does it, it'll be in the form of mass killings at rallies, which no one wants.
It will be ended when cops stop murdering black people. That seems like a more copacetic solution than escalating violence.
In Portland the major and governor have ordered police to stand down. Rioters even occupied an area for a week or more, you might recall news stories about chaz/chop? When your neighborhood is violently overtaken by an occupying force and the government does nothing, what do you call that? And of course Portland is not the only city to have made the police stand down and refused to call in the national guard after 3 months now of nightly riots, they're just the most egregious.
>Are you trying to make this about the pandemic?
I'm not trying to make this about any one thing, but I think it's foolish to imagine that the pandemic lockdowns have no impact on the proverbial temperature in the room.
> It will be ended when cops stop murdering black people. That seems like a more copacetic solution than escalating violence.
Police violence against black people is a problem in every way except statistically.
> In Portland the major and governor have ordered police to stand down. Rioters even occupied an area for a week or more, you might recall news stories about chaz/chop?
I went there personally. It was a defensive protest area with blockades against cars that had been running into protesters and aggressive cops.
> When your neighborhood is violently overtaken by an occupying force and the government does nothing, what do you call that?
"Violently overtaken". It's just protesters being in an area, most of which was a public park. It wasn't seized using weapons or anything like you might assume based on how you word that claim.
In addition, the denizens of Capitol Hill reported being much happier with CHAZ than the constant nightly indiscriminate and liberal use of teargas that seeped into their apartments and hurt their children and infants. CHAZ put a stop to that by preventing organized police aggression.
> And of course Portland is not the only city to have made the police stand down and refused to call in the national guard after 3 months now of nightly riots, they're just the most egregious.
PPD was extremely aggressive and escalatory. There's a reason they're targeted by calls to stand down or otherwise be massively restricted. They also have a long-standing history of collaborating with white supremacists. Nothing there is okay.
> I'm not trying to make this about any one thing, but I think it's foolish to imagine that the pandemic lockdowns have no impact on the proverbial temperature in the room.
I think it's callous and dismissive to speculate that protests about yet another unarmed black man being murdered by cops is about the pandemic.
> Police violence against black people is a problem in every way except statistically.
>I went there personally. It was a defensive protest area with blockades against cars that had been running into protesters and aggressive cops.
This same group of people was throwing rocks, hitting people with sticks, permanently blinding people with powerful lasers, and other acts of violence. Whether you agree with it or not, they were violent occupiers of several city blocks, not just a park. And they were definitely armed. They even created their own "peacekeeping" force which walked around with AR-15s.
>I think it's callous and dismissive to speculate that protests about yet another unarmed black man being murdered by cops is about the pandemic.
George Floyd died of an overdose of fentanyl. He was complaining about not being able to breathe before he was lying on the ground. While he was still up, he begged the police to lay him down on the ground, which they did. It appears you are the victim of race baiting. It's a shame, because the police involved in this are almost certainly going to be found not guilty, but because this story has been ginned up so much it will result in even more violent riots in the streets.
People who accomplish their political goals through violent means continue to be violent because you're teaching them that its effective. The more you surrender to violent rioters demanding policy change through fire and violence rather than the ballot box, the more you demonstrate that violence is the way to accomplish anything.
The outcome of surrendering to violent mobs is to embolden and empower violent mobs. There will be more and worse.
> People who accomplish their political goals through violent means continue to be violent because you're teaching them that its effective.
This sounds like a description of police departments throughout the United States.
> The more you surrender to violent rioters demanding policy change through fire and violence rather than the ballot box, the more you demonstrate that violence is the way to accomplish anything.
The rioters aren't doing that. The rioters are releasing pent-up frustration and anger at a system that abuses them. They're not sending any message other than their own pain.
The organized protesters are making such demands. They're being met with extreme police violence and aggression.
> The outcome of surrendering to violent mobs is to embolden and empower violent mobs. There will be more and worse.
Please actually attend a protest to see how the power dynamics work.
>This sounds like a description of police departments throughout the United States.
No. Racism is bad but not all police are racist (I would guess most aren't) and the violence is not for political purposes.
>The rioters aren't doing that. The rioters are releasing pent-up frustration and anger at a system that abuses them. They're not sending any message other than their own pain.
Disagree. They're burning down businesses, attacking people, threatening them and intimidating them. You can be in pain without attacking others. Once you attack others you're not communicating pain, you're attacking people, and you can expect to receive it in kind when the people you intimidate and threaten communicate their own pain.
>The organized protesters are making such demands. They're being met with extreme police violence and aggression.
yawn
>Please actually attend a protest to see how the power dynamics work.
I have been to protests, but violent riots are not protests, and rewarding violent rioters and defending them is its own power dynamic. The power dynamic right now is heavily on the side of violent rioters and people pushing political violence, and it will lead to even more tragedy.
> No. Racism is bad but not all police are racist (I would guess most aren't) and the violence is not for political purposes.
The police are reacting to a direct political criticism of their legitimacy by hurting, disabling, nearly killing protesters indiscriminately. Of course it's political. They're fighting for their own budgets that are at risk via the political process.
We could discuss of all the fun ways that the police are racist (it is primarily, but not solely, systemic), but I don't think it was really a point of contention.
> Disagree. They're burning down businesses, attacking people, threatening them and intimidating them.
This doesn't contradict anything I said.
> You can be in pain without attacking others. Once you attack others you're not communicating pain, you're attacking people, and you can expect to receive it in kind when the people you intimidate and threaten communicate their own pain.
I hope you never experience the pain and frustration they did, because that is exactly how this kind of systemic abuse is expressed. I highly doubt you've have to see your friends beaten, arrested, killed, mistreated, talked down to constantly, and then watch executions by cops of people like yourself over and over and over again without anyone caring to do anything about it.
This is essentially a form of tone policing long after the damage and horrors have already happened.
> >The organized protesters are making such demands. They're being met with extreme police violence and aggression.
> yawn
I have to wonder what you find boring about extreme police violence and collective punishment happening right in front of you.
> >Please actually attend a protest to see how the power dynamics work.
> I have been to protests
George Floyd protests where the police form a line to block you, then start moving on you?
> but violent riots are not protests, and rewarding violent rioters and defending them is its own power dynamic.
You haven't been to them, so please stop trying to explain the power dynamic to someone who has.
> The power dynamic right now is heavily on the side of violent rioters and people pushing political violence, and it will lead to even more tragedy.
It absolutely is not. Protesters will be beaten, gassed, maimed, and arrested. Cops will get off scot-free regardless of the extreme violences they commit indiscriminately against protesters.
I'll give you an example: I watched a woman get shot with a grenade in her chest. It stopped her heart. She was rushed to the hospital by medics and that's the only reason she lived. Her crime? Standing in the middle of the street yelling protest slogans 20-30 feet away from the cops.
Tell me, what was the power dynamic there? What consequences will any officers face for nearly murdering that woman?
