Police Reform in America

[Grifman]

Yeah, I'm done. Enjoy.

This is the second or third time you have said this. You sure?

[stessier]

Based on data collected by the Washington Post for 2016, there were 963 people shot by the police and killed by the police:

517 had guns
150 had knives
65 were in vehicles
44 had toy guns
70 had other instruments
48 were unarmed
69 were unknown

In addition, of the people killed above:

233 were black
22 of these were unarmed

Despite what we are led to believe, there is no epidemic of police going around and shooting unarmed people, or even unarmed black people. Every shooting is a tragedy, even of armed people, and we need to do all we can to reduce the shooting of unarmed people by police. But it’s not near the problem that people seem to think it is.

I disagree that the data you show leads to your conclusion. First, the data is not tracked by most police departments - I'm sure the Post did the best it could but the numbers could be fairly inaccurate and we'd have no way to know.

Second, what does it mean to possess a weapon? Was it being pointed at anyone? Was it just found in the vehicle after the deceased was being examined? Did the police just report seeing it? Why does it matter if they were in a vehicle - what is inherently threatening about that? The counting numbers aren't useful in drawing conclusions.

Finally - being generous and counting everyone in a vehicle as having a weapon, that still leaves 25% of people killed didn't have anything dangerous on them. If you include the drivers, it's up to 30%. That's a really big problem.

[GreenGoo]

This is the second or third time you have said this. You sure?

Yep. I wanted to discuss whether the situation was truly ironic and if it was a fair criticism. Or whether things are possibly not so simple.

You posted police shooting stats. I believe we are talking past each other.

[Blackhawk]

Finally - being generous and counting everyone in a vehicle as having a weapon, that still leaves 25% of people killed didn't have anything dangerous on them. If you include the drivers, it's up to 30%. That's a really big problem.

I don't think we can claim 25% there. 5% were unarmed. We don't know much of anything about any of the rest. There are plenty of weapons that aren't guns or knives that would fall under 'other instruments.' Just a few months ago cops shot someone in Dayton with a sword. Baseball bats. Tire irons. Spears.

Second, 'toy guns' are not a black-and-white 'unjustified' thing (and likely includes perfect replicas, like Airsoft.)

Third, actually unarmed isn't as black-and-white as it sounds, either. A few shootings are accidental discharges - a problem, but not malevolence. A few are genuinely life-and-death situations. People grabbing a cop's gun and struggling for it, for example. More than once and unarmed person has been shot because they were attempting to throw a cop off of a bridge or roof. And then there is the guy who was believed to be armed before they arrived, standing there yelling with his hands behind his back, who suddenly reaches into his pocket and pretends to pull out a gun.

I'm not denyhing that there are real, serious, issues, but 25% 'nothing dangerous' is just not what's going on with those numbers.

[stessier]

Finally - being generous and counting everyone in a vehicle as having a weapon, that still leaves 25% of people killed didn't have anything dangerous on them. If you include the drivers, it's up to 30%. That's a really big problem.

I don't think we can claim 25% there. 5% were unarmed. We don't know much of anything about any of the rest. There are plenty of weapons that aren't guns or knives that would fall under 'other instruments.' Just a few months ago cops shot someone in Dayton with a sword. Baseball bats. Tire irons. Spears.

Second, 'toy guns' are not a black-and-white 'unjustified' thing (and likely includes perfect replicas, like Airsoft.)

Third, actually unarmed isn't as black-and-white as it sounds, either. A few shootings are accidental discharges - a problem, but not malevolence. A few are genuinely life-and-death situations. People grabbing a cop's gun and struggling for it, for example. More than once and unarmed person has been shot because they were attempting to throw a cop off of a bridge or roof. And then there is the guy who was believed to be armed before they arrived, standing there yelling with his hands behind his back, who suddenly reaches into his pocket and pretends to pull out a gun.

I'm not denyhing that there are real, serious, issues, but 25% 'nothing dangerous' is just not what's going on with those numbers.

I mean, you could say similar things about the knives and guns category. Just possessing one doesn't mean they were at all dangerous. So I can agree the numbers mean nothing and definitely don't support the idea there is no big problem.

[Blackhawk]

Numbers are great, but when the numbers apply to extremely complex situations, the lack of context limits their usefulness.

But I agree that there really is a big problem. And one point I'd make about the numbers is that they show fatal shootings - not violence. If there were accurate data about police violence/excessive use of force (there isn't), it would be more likely to show the bigger problem.

[Kurth]

Just floating this out here: Defund the Police = Kill the Woke Mind Virus (more or less).

Both are big, nebulous, catch-all political slogans meant to rope in lots of people with differing views about (1) the nature and extent of the problem and (2) the appropriate solution.

Both kind of suck.

[malchior]

I think some police do some really bad stuff, and I have posted my share of incidents that have outraged me. That said, when it comes to shootings, I think we should really seek to understand the extent of the problem. This video from a sociology class at maybe Penn State (??) was a real eye opener for me:



Based on data collected by the Washington Post for 2016...

<snip>

Despite what we are led to believe, there is no epidemic of police going around and shooting unarmed people, or even unarmed black people. Every shooting is a tragedy, even of armed people, and we need to do all we can to reduce the shooting of unarmed people by police. But it’s not near the problem that people seem to think it is.

We don't know the scope of the problem. The Washington Post scrapes that data by reading news accounts. News accounts that are often sourced by the police. The police are party to the action and not an unbiased sources of that data.

The further issue there is that we know that the police aren't necessarily trustworthy. For example, we have this recent incident in Philadelphia where the officer was charged with murder. Initial reporting that ran for several weeks was that the man was armed with a knife or the officer had reason to believe he had a gun and posed an immediate threat to the officer. However, when the body cam was released it was shown that the officer's account was very far from the truth. The officer then was allowed to amend his story to reflect the video. Unless you track the twists and turns you have little chance of getting solid data from that incident. The police muddied the story significantly.

In any case, the point I'm making is that the police don't have a good track record about truthful reporting of their use of force which is the source of the data used in that lecture. I'm not challenging that it's even wrong but *we do not know*. We don't collect *that data* in any systematic way that would allow us to deal with the biased source of the data. I've said this for a long time but if we truly cared to understand this issue we'd have standards for reporting use of force. But we don't. That itself is a symptom of the problem.

[GreenGoo]

Just floating this out here: Defund the Police = Kill the Woke Mind Virus (more or less).

Geezus H.

No. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what "defund the police" was about. And that's the fault of the slogan AND the fucking media never looking past the slogan and only gave air time to the fringes who latched on after the fact.

Police are best equipped and best trained to handle mental health crises: Yay/Nay?

Because if you answered no, then you support Defund the Police, at least in part. And if you answered yes, well, status quo is working out great then.

Ok, I realize you were just floating a possible comparison, but like most "both sidesism", it really isn't.

[GreenGoo]

In any case, the point I'm making is that the police don't have a good track record about truthful reporting of their use of force which is the source of the data used in that lecture. I'm not challenging that it's even wrong but *we do not know*. We don't collect *that data* in any systematic way that would allow us to deal with the biased source of the data. I've said this for a long time but if we truly cared to understand this issue we'd have standards for reporting use of force. But we don't. That itself is a symptom of the problem.

Who better to understand fossil fuel's affect on Climate Change than the experts in the fossil fuel industry? But wait, an independent company hired by the fossil fuel industry has provided a bias free report!

[Kurth]

Just floating this out here: Defund the Police = Kill the Woke Mind Virus (more or less).

Geezus H.

No. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what "defund the police" was about. And that's the fault of the slogan AND the fucking media never looking past the slogan and only gave air time to the fringes who latched on after the fact.

Police are best equipped and best trained to handle mental health crises: Yay/Nay?

Because if you answered no, then you support Defund the Police, at least in part. And if you answered yes, well, status quo is working out great then.

Ok, I realize you were just floating a possible comparison, but like most "both sidesism", it really isn't.

I don't think they're directly equivalent, but both are stupid slogans that are used as an umbrella to lump in varying beliefs. That's not "both sidesism," which is a term that's way, way, way -- can I get another "way" -- overused in my opinion. They are simply both bad slogans. I'll never really understand why people feel the need to dig in and defend something not worthy of defense because to allow it to be attacked is succumbing to "both sidesism."

And while today's news media is frequently deserving of scorn and is too often an abject failure at delivering on what should be its fundamental purpose -- to inform -- I have a very difficult time blaming the media (or anyone else, for that matter) for missing the nuance of "defund the police." Of course there were parts of the defunding that made sense - reallocating funds for mental health as you point out - but that was not the core plank in that platform, at least for most of its loudest adherents and supporters.

I'm no mindreader, so forgive me for putting words/ideas in your mouth, but part of our disconnect here, I think, is that you may feel that "Defund the Police" is a bad name for an otherwise generally laudatory policy, and, in contrast there are no redeemable or worthy ideas hiding under the "Kill the Woke Mind Virus" umbrella because it really just provides cover for a bunch of haters.

I wouldn't disagree that there's significantly more evil lurking (hiding in plain sight) within the anti-woke crowd. But I also believe there are people who are sympathetic to some of the "anti-woke" sentiments that are not haters in general but disdain the rigid, dogmatic, performative aspects of some of the more radical progressive ideology.

[Unagi]

Sigh. Defund the police was about moving mental health crises away from cops, and reducing their military style gear and training. It was never about removing entire police departments, unless it was to dig out corruption at its core and start from scratch. Sure, many crazy people suggested that police are no longer needed, but that was never a core part of defund the police, and the media gave only the crazies the voice to reach everyone, letting the crazies submarine the entire idea because it had a bad slogan.

So now, years later, we have this nonsense, where "defund the police" has always meant "no police whatsoever", and therefore is an easy dunk when a vocal BLM'er gets assaulted and is unhappy about it. It's ridiculous.

I don't know, maybe she was one of the crazies who said remove the police and don't replace them with anything. If so, dunk away. She deserves it. But we don't know if that's true, no articles are willing to actually be fair in their details and/or report the subtleties, and so we are left with this nonsense. Worse, it undermines any attempt at police reform that might have originated in the BLM movement. Annoying.

Thank you for writing this. This is exactly how I feel about this story.

[Unagi]

She had a Facebook page where she was calling for the police to be abolished:

We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department. Say it with me. DISMANTLE. The. Minneapolis. Police. Department," she wrote, "As allies, what can we do right now? LISTEN and LEARN from our Black siblings. And then AMPLIFY this message right now, in this moment. MPD has systematically failed the Black Community, they have failed ALL OF US. It's time to build a new infrastructure that works for ALL communities. If you are still disagreeing with that BASIC FACT, I'm not sure what to say to you.

This is the same police department she thanked for helping her:

Thank you to the incredible Minneapolis 4th Precinct Officers, Mayor Frey, Chief O'Hara, Paramedics, neighbors, friends and DFL family, who all came to our aide during this terrifying experience. I'm so grateful for this community that wraps us in love.

They went from needing to be “abolished” to “incredible”, all in just one act of crime.

Not really.
She is talking about the MPD in the 'dismantle' discussion. She is talking about the people: "Minneapolis 4th Precint Officers, Chief O'Hara, etc".
Have you ever worked in a system that sucked - but you knew there were good people that were just people that worked there, in the system...

I can hate Xfinity, but still have super high praise for the guy at the Xfinity store that moved mountains to get me a better router after a storm fried out the one we had... for instance.

[Blackhawk]

I wouldn't disagree that there's significantly more evil lurking (hiding in plain sight) within the anti-woke crowd. But I also believe there are people who are sympathetic to some of the "anti-woke" sentiments that are not haters in general but disdain the rigid, dogmatic, performative aspects of some of the more radical progressive ideology.

Including some of us here (including me.) Treating things as black and white never solved anything (except early filmmaking.)

But there is a lot of difference between the slogan that was so badly phrased that it was misunderstood ("defund the police"), and one that's openly aggressive and (as far as I know), meant to be taken at near face value (the implication that everyone on the 'other side' was that way because they were mentally ill, and needed to be 'fixed.') One is a phrase intended to convey solving an actual, real-world problem that was taken as something far more extreme than it was intended to represent. The other is an attack designed to dehumanize the opposition and goad people into standing against them.

[malchior]

And while today's news media is frequently deserving of scorn and is too often an abject failure at delivering on what should be its fundamental purpose -- to inform -- I have a very difficult time blaming the media (or anyone else, for that matter) for missing the nuance of "defund the police." Of course there were parts of the defunding that made sense - reallocating funds for mental health as you point out - but that was not the core plank in that platform, at least for most of its loudest adherents and supporters.

FWIW I think this is the problem. It was a dumb slogan but it's hard not to also see that the big news networks latched onto that and exaggerated the numbers calling for abolishing police. This was used to snuff out the viability of more reasonable calls for desperately needed police reform. And you get what you just wrote - a few years later there is some lasting impression that abolishing the police was supported by some multitude of people. Instead it was almost certainly a small group of people. However, that was the point. They painted the entire issue with the most extreme viewpoint to kill it off.

I wouldn't disagree that there's significantly more evil lurking (hiding in plain sight) within the anti-woke crowd. But I also believe there are people who are sympathetic to some of the "anti-woke" sentiments that are not haters in general but disdain the rigid, dogmatic, performative aspects of some of the more radical progressive ideology.

Sure but again I think that maybe a lot of folks were purposefully mislead to believe that there are/were way more of these radicals than there actually are.

[Unagi]

I know that thete were definitely some who talked about lowering or removing the poluce and replacing with social workers which is a ceazy idea. I don't see a social worker being able to go to a potentially hostel area to try to talk down a gunman without a police presence

Sorry, that's not what people wanted to see. They wanted social workers to be called to a house where the person was just upset/freaking out - not "a gunman" situation... It's more about autistic adults who are in 'shutdown' mode and sitting in the middle of the street - and they end up getting shot by a cop for no real reason other than not following the cop's commands.

How is that missed? That wouldn't mean that the armed police are gone, it means that they wouldn't be called to certain problems - and as a result, some of the funding should be shifted to a 'social worker' type solution.

What is crazy about that? Why do you so quickly torpedo the whole thing with this argument that an unarmed social worker couldn't possibly stop 5 armed robbers? Why even say that?

[Punisher]

It's just something remember seeing back then. I very well could be misremembering so feel free to call me on any wrong info....I'll just feget about it tomorrow anyway..

[Jeff V]

I remember reading an analysis about why our "peacekeeping troops" were failing so badly in Iraq -- the gist of the article was that soldiers aren't trained to be policemen, their methods for dealing with hostiles is far more aggressive and often includes lethal force.

Around the same time, I read a story of how NYC, following the directives of a new police commissioner, made a concerted effort to engage the community -- to visibly do good things when not bashing the bad guys. To gain trust and respect. And it had a huge effect.

The community I live in now seems to follow that New York model. Police are present in a community support role at every opportunity -- school functions, festivals, even Halloween! In my current occupation, I've met a few people who have ran afoul of the business end of the police force, but by and large they don't seem to be natural thugs and are genuinely people you'd like to support. Being a diverse community, it also says something that there's been no bias charges leveled against them. When he graduated preschool 5 years ago, my son said he wants to be a police officer. 5 years later he still says the same thing. He even has a hyper-developed sense of right and wrong -- when my wife mentioned she wasn't charged for an item at the store last week, he demanded she return to the store and pay for it. He is very authoritative when it comes to such things!

[malchior]

It's just something remember seeing back then. I very well could be misremembering so feel free to call me on any wrong info....I'll just feget about it tomorrow anyway..

Some people definitely said that. Unfortunately they were painted as some majority when they were instead the fringe people. Perhaps boosting the fringe got the media more clicks and eyeballs or there were efforts to make them look crazy intentionally but in the end the third major police reform movement in 100 years was completely defeated. Again.

[Blackhawk]

How is that missed? That wouldn't mean that the armed police are gone, it means that they wouldn't be called to certain problems - and as a result, some of the funding should be shifted to a 'social worker' type solution.

I would expect that they'd still be called to those problems, but that they'd have the training to recognize when there is more going on than criminal misconduct, and have the training to keep the situation from escalating while they call for specialist backup. As it is now, with no special training and no specialists, police have to deal with mentally ill people themselves. The problem is, the only tools the cops have to deal with those situations are tools designed for criminals. That leads to mistakes (not the cops' fault - they don't have a choice), which in turn leads to minor situations exploding, and mentally ill people turning aggressive, or fleeing, or panicking, or... well, you get the idea. Cops aren't the ones who are best suited to talking a jumper off of the ledge, and yet we still expect them to, and still blame them when it doesn't work.

It's no different than calling in a crisis negotiator when there's a hostage. The right tool for the right job.

And if you combine the specialists and training with better general mental health care, you end up with fewer untreated mentally ill people, resulting in fewer crimes. You end up with more situations that get diffused peacefully instead of escalating. And (theoretically), in the end, you need fewer police.

(As a general disclaimer, none of this is meant to suggest that cops don't have empathy toward the mental ill, or that they don't have any training in regards to non-hostile subjects at all - just that it's not their specialty, and so it's very easy for them to get in over their heads when dealing with it.)

[Jeff V]

In a more sane society without the ever-present threat of gun violence, sending social workers to defuse a domestic issue would be prudent. They are not trained to handle life-threatening situations, though.

[GreenGoo]

Some people definitely said that. Unfortunately they were painted as some majority when they were instead the fringe people. Perhaps boosting the fringe got the media more clicks and eyeballs or there were efforts to make them look crazy intentionally but in the end the third major police reform movement in 100 years was completely defeated. Again.

Yes. The wrong, minority voices were escalated (by the media) until they became the public face of "defund the police" to the chagrin of people who had real reform in mind. This is almost entirely the fault of the media, aided by a terrible slogan. So now a few years later Kurth believes a world without police was the primary goal of defund the police. It isn't and never was. I don't blame Kurth. But it was wrong then and it's wrong now.

I don't hold out any hope of "fixing" this. Defund police will be forever the butt of easy jokes based on misinformation.

Time to try again next time some serious shit goes down and people start wondering wtf is going on with police yet again, because nothing has changed since the last time.

Worse, "defund the police" also became synonymous with BLM. Which was just a complete mindfuck on the public. So one thing that is misunderstood is substituted for another thing that is unpopular with racists, for a double whammy of poor messaging and intentional conflating.

There's no saving defund the police or BLM. At least I've given up on them, so the wrong guys won again.

Next time I hope there are less riots.

[GreenGoo]

In a more sane society without the ever-present threat of gun violence, sending social workers to defuse a domestic issue would be prudent. They are not trained to handle life-threatening situations, though.

I don't have the solutions, but I can imagine those with skill, experience and education can figure it out, but we have to let them try if we want to know for sure.

We let negotiators do their thing while police stand by. I feel like if the cops can avoid shooting people when ordered to in that situation, there are other situations that can also be handled.

Again, I'm not interested in trying to figure this out as a layperson. Let's get some smart, knowledgeable people working on the problem, rather than having the ignorant public say "I can't figure it out, it must be impossible". This happens in all sorts of fields. Immunization, for example.

[Kurth]

Some people definitely said that. Unfortunately they were painted as some majority when they were instead the fringe people. Perhaps boosting the fringe got the media more clicks and eyeballs or there were efforts to make them look crazy intentionally but in the end the third major police reform movement in 100 years was completely defeated. Again.

Yes. The wrong, minority voices were escalated (by the media) until they became the public face of "defund the police" to the chagrin of people who had real reform in mind. This is almost entirely the fault of the media, aided by a terrible slogan. So now a few years later Kurth believes a world without police was the primary goal of defund the police. It isn't and never was. I don't blame Kurth. But it was wrong then and it's wrong now.

I don't hold out any hope of "fixing" this. Defund police will be forever the butt of easy jokes based on misinformation.

Time to try again next time some serious shit goes down and people start wondering wtf is going on with police yet again, because nothing has changed since the last time.

I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, but it feels to me like there's some revisionist history going on, too.

(1) Sure, everyone rallying to "defund the police" didn't want to abolish all policing, but it wasn't an accident that the slogan wasn't "reform the police." I understood that a core principle was that policing in America had reached a point where it was beyond reform. The whole idea was that police organizations had to be dismantled. If your point is that dismantling policing wasn't the endpoint, fine, but I don't think that really changes much.

(2) To the extent you think people like me are suffering from the misperception that "defund the police" meant "defund the police," it's hard for me to understand your position that "This is almost entirely the fault of the media, aided by a terrible slogan." I mean, the media didn't think up that slogan, and those rallying around it weren't forced to do so. If your argument is that there were only a tiny minority of people who actually wanted to defund the police and that minority hijacked the movement with the media aiding and abetting, where were the legions of voices shouting them down and telling them that their approach was socially irresponsible and politically suicidal? I know I saw and heard some people making that clear, but those people were not really part of the "defund the police" movement to begin with. What I saw more of was people who were more interested in jumping on the bandwagon -- even if they weren't fully onboard with "defunding" the police -- rather than criticize a bad slogan and a harmful movement. AOC's viral comment is a case in point:

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is among the proponents of the call to defund the police, and a recent post on her Instagram story on the subject quickly went viral, after it was screenshotted and shared by Twitter user Ashley Quan. Asked, "What does an America with defunded police look like to you?" Ocasio-Cortez responded, "It looks like a suburb."

That could have been a great opportunity for a prominent voice to say that "defund the police" is a misnomer, and what we really need is for this country to get serious about police reform (starting with taking on the police unions) and funding policing in a smarter way that emphasizes training for cops that better equips them to deal with the situations they find themselves in along with additional community funding. But that's not what she and lots of others like her said when given the opportunity.

(3) While I agree that everyone who wanted to "defund the police" didn't want to end policing, there certainly was a not insubstantial minority who were, in fact, in favor of doing away with police. In Portland, that group had a substantial voice (not surprising, given the dismal state of police-community relations here), and in Seattle, they actually put in practice what they were preaching with the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, which . . . didn't really go so well.

Worse, "defund the police" also became synonymous with BLM. Which was just a complete mindfuck on the public. So one thing that is misunderstood is substituted for another thing that is unpopular with racists, for a double whammy of poor messaging and intentional conflating.

There's no saving defund the police or BLM. At least I've given up on them, so the wrong guys won again.

Next time I hope there are less riots.

(4) Now, this one really puzzles me. Who do you think mindfucked the public into thinking BLM and "defund the police" were joined at the hip? I mean, it's not like BLM issued a headline-grabbing petition calling for a "national defunding of police," right?

I get that you can look at all of this, shake your head and think it's a damn shame. I wouldn't disagree. But this isn't one you can put at the feet of the media or the racists on the right. These are self-inflicted wounds.

[malchior]

I get that you can look at all of this, shake your head and think it's a damn shame. I wouldn't disagree. But this isn't one you can put at the feet of the media or the racists on the right. These are self-inflicted wounds.

I think this is mis-calibrated a bit. Were there self-inflicted wounds. Sure. Was there *any indication* of all that there was any real popular support for 'defund the police' from real people though? Not really. It wasn't popular in Black communities. It wasn't popular in Hispanic communities. It wasn't popular in White communities. It was popular on Twitter, some politicians pussy footed on their language around the issue, but there was wall-to-wall coverage by the media. There was a real disconnect between what real people supported and what we were (and often are) told is "important" or "trending".

Just to press a little on the calibration idea, we can look at the CHOP nonsense or what happened in Portland and still note while disruptive and annoying they were in most cases protests or events that spanned a few blocks in these cities for a few weeks to a couple of months in the extremis. It was more Occupy Wall Street than anything real. Yet they were covered extensively and disproportionately as some sort of serious movement. IMO this was either for clicks or intentionally but it left an indelible impression it was way more impactful than it actually was. It's very hard to seriously dismiss the media impact when the movement pretty much only existed as a ephemeral media creation in the first place. The tv guys could go down to a few blocks in Portland and get coverage to bombard us with and then when they were gone they just talked about them as if they still existed. They were mostly long gone by the time the 2022 election rolled in.

In the end, we can't even answer simple questions. How many people actually belonged to any of the groups that said "Defund the Police"? How much money did they actually raise? Were any charities stood up? There were a handful at best. How much legislation did they push? I'd say none of that pretty much happened. It wasn't a real movement. It was mostly people behind screens and the media telling us about them.

Edit: The topic is incomplete without crediting the Republicans for keeping the story viable. They worked arguments against Defund the Police into every campaign in 2022 and have been to some extent still are talking about it. Even if a candidate has never come close to saying anything aligned with the idea they have attempted to attach it to the Democratic brand. They understand that the media is looking to fill airspace and they are all too happy to fill it.

[malchior]

Speaking of Seattle. Here is the VP of the police union laughing and joking about a woman run over by the police recklessly driving around the city.

I expect little or nothing to happen to this absolute disgrace. Especially since the comments were about an officer who murdered a citizen and wasn't even punished. (As far as any public reporting there hasn't been a charge, discipline, leave, etc. for his conduct). Maybe...just maybe we should focus less on whether Defund the Police was a dumb slogan and focus on the fact that policing in this country is rotten and corrupt. And the police often literally murder people without accountability.

[GreenGoo]

Yeah, I'm not debating BLM and Defund the Police all over again (from years ago). I thought I could redirect misconceptions but apparently not. That's ok. Keep on, keeping on.

Police abolishing politician gets assaulted then begs police for help.

Ironic/Schadenfreude/Hilarious. Take your pick.

[GreenGoo]

Maybe...just maybe we should focus less on whether Defund the Police was a dumb slogan and focus on the fact that policing in this country is rotten and corrupt. And the police often literally murder people without accountability.

No, someone posted a youtube video and then a newspaper's internet scraped stats. There's no problem.

[Kurth]

Yeah, I'm not debating BLM and Defund the Police all over again (from years ago). I thought I could redirect misconceptions but apparently not. That's ok. Keep on, keeping on.

Police abolishing politician gets assaulted then begs police for help.

Ironic/Schadenfreude/Hilarious. Take your pick.

Fair enough. For the record, though, I was never happy to see people dunking on that BLM advocate who was assaulted. I just think people should recognize stupid shit like "defund the police" for what it was and not act like that entire train wreck was the fault of third parties (the media, the right, etc.).

[GreenGoo]

Don't worry, "it is known".

[Kurth]

I get that you can look at all of this, shake your head and think it's a damn shame. I wouldn't disagree. But this isn't one you can put at the feet of the media or the racists on the right. These are self-inflicted wounds.

I think this is mis-calibrated a bit. Were there self-inflicted wounds. Sure. Was there *any indication* of all that there was any real popular support for 'defund the police' from real people though?

I think the word "real" is doing a lot of heavy lifting when you ask whether there was any "real popular support . . . from real people" regarding calls to defund the police.

I wonder how much support is "real" and what groups qualify as "real people"?

[malchior]

I just meant that there weren't very many and it was greatly exaggerated. I am just pushing back firmly on the idea there was a groundswell of people who actually thought we should abolish the police.

At the very least they never showed up in reliable sources of data that make it a trackable "real" movement. That's all I'm getting at. It evaporated almost as quickly as it appeared at the very least.

[Kurth]

I just meant that there weren't very many and it was greatly exaggerated. I am just pushing back firmly on the idea there was a groundswell of people who actually thought we should abolish the police.

At the very least they never showed up in reliable sources of data that make it a trackable "real" movement. That's all I'm getting at. It evaporated almost as quickly as it appeared at the very least.

Ok. What if it were roughly the same percentage of people that thought reparations were a good idea? Or universal basic income? Or decriminalizing illegal border crossings?

Real?

Not real?

[malchior]

I just meant that there weren't very many and it was greatly exaggerated. I am just pushing back firmly on the idea there was a groundswell of people who actually thought we should abolish the police.

At the very least they never showed up in reliable sources of data that make it a trackable "real" movement. That's all I'm getting at. It evaporated almost as quickly as it appeared at the very least.

Ok. What if it were roughly the same percentage of people that thought reparations were a good idea? Or universal basic income? Or decriminalizing illegal border crossings?

Real?

Not real?

Instead of getting wrapped around the axle on the word real...those are probably examples of ideas with similar sized support. What's important is that none of those got anywhere near the coverage in the 2022 election cycle.

All I was arguing is that the issue never had enough popular support to merit the coverage that occurred. Especially considering that there was no actual defunding of the police realized. Funding for police increased in the vast majority of major cities. Police policy was largely reinforced as well with minor or basically no real reforms put in place. Yet 'Defund the Police' was a major issue in the 2022 election. That's the disparity I'm pointing out.

Referencing the below exchange, all I'm arguing is that the train wreck might have the seeds in some small pocket of misguided people but in the end the issue was seized upon by the right. 'Defund the Police' was added to every stump speech. The right wing media was and is still being flooded with messaging about blue, broken cities where they "defunded the police". That messaging was amplified by the media. It was and is still exaggerated and used to move public opinion to elect anti-democratic authoritarian officials.

So sure some fools maybe should have sloganeered better but it still is important to note the issue was distorted beyond actual relevance and actual impact to bring regressive change. The media has a large hand in that. It's not about "blaming" anyone for anything. It's about understanding how soft power is being wielded to move public opinion.

Yeah, I'm not debating BLM and Defund the Police all over again (from years ago). I thought I could redirect misconceptions but apparently not. That's ok. Keep on, keeping on.

Police abolishing politician gets assaulted then begs police for help.

Ironic/Schadenfreude/Hilarious. Take your pick.

Fair enough. For the record, though, I was never happy to see people dunking on that BLM advocate who was assaulted. I just think people should recognize stupid shit like "defund the police" for what it was and not act like that entire train wreck was the fault of third parties (the media, the right, etc.).

[Kurth]

I just meant that there weren't very many and it was greatly exaggerated. I am just pushing back firmly on the idea there was a groundswell of people who actually thought we should abolish the police.

At the very least they never showed up in reliable sources of data that make it a trackable "real" movement. That's all I'm getting at. It evaporated almost as quickly as it appeared at the very least.

Ok. What if it were roughly the same percentage of people that thought reparations were a good idea? Or universal basic income? Or decriminalizing illegal border crossings?

Real?

Not real?

Instead of getting wrapped around the axle on the word real...those are probably examples of ideas with similar sized support. What's important is that none of those got anywhere near the coverage in the 2022 election cycle.

All I was arguing is that the issue never had enough popular support to merit the coverage that occurred. Especially considering that there was no actual defunding of the police realized. Funding for police increased in the vast majority of major cities. Police policy was largely reinforced as well with minor or basically no real reforms put in place. Yet 'Defund the Police' was a major issue in the 2022 election. That's the disparity I'm pointing out.

Referencing the below exchange, all I'm arguing is that the train wreck might have the seeds in some small pocket of misguided people but in the end the issue was seized upon by the right. 'Defund the Police' was added to every stump speech. The right wing media was and is still being flooded with messaging about blue, broken cities where they "defunded the police". That messaging was amplified by the media. It was and is still exaggerated and used to move public opinion to elect anti-democratic authoritarian officials.

So sure some fools maybe should have sloganeered better but it still is important to note the issue was distorted beyond actual relevance and actual impact to bring regressive change. The media has a large hand in that. It's not about "blaming" anyone for anything. It's about understanding how soft power is being wielded to move public opinion.

Ok, but if we agree that defunding the police had roughly the same support as universal basic income or reparations or decriminalizing illegal border crossings -- roughly 25% among American adults according to some polling -- is that really such a small pocket of misguided people that it doesn't merit coverage? Especially at a time when problems with policing were the topic of the day, it seems like expansive coverage of such a radical position is a no brainer.

I'd also take issue with the notion that those other ideas - UBI, reparations, open borders - haven't received coverage or been played up by the right. They have. Excessively.

Because that's what happens: When you tee up big, fat, stupid softballs, of course the other side is going to hit them out of the park.

It just sets me off to see what I interpret as people blaming the media and the right for capitalizing on the "defund the police" movement. What the hell did people think they would do?

[Unagi]

Kinda begs the question UBI, reparations, & open borders are big, fat, stupid softballs.

[malchior]

Ok, but if we agree that defunding the police had roughly the same support as universal basic income or reparations or decriminalizing illegal border crossings -- roughly 25% among American adults according to some polling -- is that really such a small pocket of misguided people that it doesn't merit coverage? Especially at a time when problems with policing were the topic of the day, it seems like expansive coverage of such a radical position is a no brainer.

That's the trick though. I highly doubt 25% of people believed in abolishing police. Lots of people understood it was about reforming police and groaned at the dumb slogan. Polls are a bit imprecise for complex topics for this reason. I doubt 1 in 4 people on the street would even known what UBI is without some explanation/prompting but explained to them I think some people would be inevitably in favor of it. It's hard to know what true support there without a lot of digging.

That's why I'd avoid calling it radical and instead call it incipient. It wasn't a fully formed idea. There wasn't any model legislation. No one had tried it. It wasn't in the end a real thing. It was the kernel of an idea. More on this in a second.

I'd also take issue with the notion that those other ideas - UBI, reparations, open borders - haven't received coverage or been played up by the right. They have. Excessively.

Because that's what happens: When you tee up big, fat, stupid softballs, of course the other side is going to hit them out of the park.

Sure. And the reality is that "Conservatives" have a massive advantage. They want to prevent change and preserve their own power. Our deeply flawed Constitution enables that. The only way to make progress is to introduce new ideas and then fight an almost impossible uphill battle against wealth. And unfortunately as with most new ideas sometimes they come to us raw or poorly constructed. In a nation of 300 million that seems inevitable. So there will always be some fuel that can be used to dismiss a new idea. That's unfortunately one of the oldest problems human society has dealt with. How do we balance progress when power doesn't want it.

Absent the interference from capital it would be best that we give new ideas a fair shake. Unfortunately that isn't our world; our information is presented to us filtered by oligarchs and statists. When the world and people saw how rotten and corrupt our police were they were shocked. There was a real chance for reform. And so police to preserve their power and the oligarchs who align with them for many reasons pumped the airwaves with nonsense from a fringe group of people who wanted to abolish police. Others tried to talk about a broader middle course but that was choked off.

In short, I don't get upset at the idea which never had a chance to develop. I get upset at the people who use their power to kill new ideas or only seek to preserve their power at the expense of others.

It just sets me off to see what I interpret as people blaming the media and the right for capitalizing on the "defund the police" movement. What the hell did people think they would do?

I've seen that but I'm asking you to consider if it is *wise* and thinks about the ramifications. You're essentially getting upset at the mechanism of progress or change. The right using the media has become the ultimate gatekeeper for policy. If it challenges the powerful, the very serious people will write a hundred articles a day telling the world how silly it is. In the end, I don't think folks are really considering how we are being manipulated and how many of us are indirectly and probably unwittingly/unconsciously advocating for stasis.

[Punisher]

I'm almost positive that a few places actually DID abolish the police. I can't remember the details but I tjoiught I read that one town did it in a kneejerk reaction, had pikachu face when crime rose, but none of the cops wanted to come back so tjey had to psy the county or state police to patrol which only helped a little because they had other plac3s to be.
I could be completely misremembering though.

[Isgrimnur]

Wiki

In June 2020, the 2012 disbanding of the Camden, New Jersey police department and replacement with a new one under county control was referred to as an example of abolishing the police by some media outlets. In 2012, Camden was considered "the most dangerous city in the United States", and the city had numerous problems with police corruption and many instances in which police would plant drugs on citizens. The department's disbanding and replacement allowed for funds to be reallocated to community-building initiatives. The new department had more officers, but their roles were reframed to be community-oriented and focused on de-escalating violence. A seven-year study showed that violent crime dropped 42% and the crime rate dropped from 79 per 1,000 to 44 per 1,000. Camden dropped down the list of most dangerous cities in the U.S. to tenth.

[Punisher]

First Newark loses 1st place as the #1 carjacking city abd now this.
Cmon. Ate we first in antthing now?!
But that story seems familiar. I was probably aware of that in the before times.
I don't think thats the one im thinking of though...