Private Security Force That Works with Citizen Wants the Power to Arrest People
vice.com
vice.com
I’m totally fine with police making as much as a software developer as long as they are competent and reasonably non-corrupt. Here is their starting wages, starting 70k without a college degree: https://www.joinlapd.com/salary should probably be a bit more if you want them to be able to afford houses in LA though.
An excellent argument against the privatization of public space, such as those privately-owned parks publicized during the Wall Street protests.
The rent-a-cops employed by the company named in TFA have little difference from government rent-a-cops performing the same duties beyond who's letterhead they get their pay stubs on.
Frankly I think allowing security forces to have police powers is crap loaded with perverse incentives and ripe for abuse. But also I see no reason why being buddy-buddy with the .gov should get the above mentioned types of security agencies law enforcement power while a private security force securing a private facility cannot do the same. Rent-a-cop is rent-a-cop. Either they all get to arrest a hobo for peeing in a corner or none of them do.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nskorpen/status/12841449250392637...
AFAIK there hasn't been any polls to see preferences for the desired level of defunding w/in the movement. I wouldn't be surprised if 100% defunding was a plurality (but not a majority)
The abolish/disband faction is a different faction from the defund faction, sharing with the other that both believe the reform cycle where police problems are dealt woth by increasing budgets for retraining or other reform measures, reducing resources for other services, which results in police roles expanding, resulting in new police problems from inserting armed law enforcement into nee and inappropriate roles needs to be broken.
The “defund” crowd says, lets wind that the other way and drive non-core roles and the funding to go with them to agencies outside of the police departments, so that the police department is focussed on roles that require armed law enforcement.
The “disband/abolish” crowd says lets go further, and redesign community services without an all-encompassing centralized paramilitary law enforcement service, with enforcement arms where necessary within agencies with focuses other than “law enforcement”.
(There's a fringe within the disband/abolish faction that would eliminate armed law enforcement as a local government function entirely, but they aren't typical of the disband/abolish movement much less the defund movement or an umbrella including both defund and disband/abolish.)
Yes, but both use the slogan ‘defund the police’.
No, the abolish/disband faction tends to use “abolish (or disband) the police”.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-...
“For the last week, mainstream publications and centrist thinkers have tied themselves in knots trying to explain that when activists say they want to defund the police, they don’t really mean that; “defund the police” is a slogan that actually means “make police departments smaller and more accountable,” they say. But many people who say “defund the police” mean exactly that—defund and abolish police departments, and use that funding to lift up communities.”
Claiming it to be a clear cut distinction simply isn’t supported by the evidence.
Saying ‘at least not yet” doesn’t change the documented the fact that people use defund the police to mean abolish the police.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
Obviously they are, but when some people say they are putting toothpaste on their toothbrush, they are doing so because they plan on brushing their teeth.
In just the same way, it is well documented that many people who say ‘defund the police’ mean completely defund them as a step towards abolishing them. There are people who are literally saying ‘when we say defund’ we mean abolish.
We’re not talking about whether in some abstract world a semantic distinction is possible. We’re talking about how activists are using a political slogan.
It’s hard to imagine you are really claiming that nobody who says ‘defund the police’ means to abolish the police.
You're playing semantic games with "means" here, you're using it as a verb, "intends to" and not "is a synonym for", as we have been previously in the conversation. Breaking it down, people who intend to abolish the police almost by definition also support defunding it. Because that's a step towards abolishment.
So you're correct, I'm not claiming that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ intends to abolish the police"
I am saying that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ is using it as a synonym for abolish the police" to trick people.
> Obviously they are, but when some people say they are putting toothpaste on their toothbrush, they are doing so because they plan on brushing their teeth.
This would be more compelling if there were people who felt that just putting toothpaste on the brush was the goal. But it isn't, because we both agree that there are some people who's only goal is to (partially) defund the police.
I'm going to disengage now because I can't see how this was done in good faith.
Plenty of people are using it as a synonym for abolish the police. That’s we’ll documented.
However those people seem to be quite honest about the meaning - I.e. they are not trying to trick people.
Plenty of people are using it as a synonym for abolish the police. That’s we’ll documented.
However those people seem to be quite honest about the meaning - I.e. they are not trying to trick people.
> I'm going to disengage now because I can't see how this was done in good faith.
What part are you saying is not good faith?
Am I?
> I am saying that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ is using it as a synonym for abolish the police" to trick people.
Plenty of people are using it as a synonym for abolish the police. That’s well documented, and weird to deny.
However those people seem to be quite honest about the meaning - I.e. they are not trying to trick people.
> I'm going to disengage now because I can't see how this was done in good faith.
What claim are you saying is not made in good faith?
Democrats should have immediately distanced themselves from this movement.
When I walk by the 2MM house on Capitol Hill in Seattle with the “yes we actually mean defund the police” it’s just a bunch of misguided upper class people who are too sheltered to really know danger in their lives.
It is widely reported on:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/democrats-mean-it-when-the...
It's like saying, here, we'll keep the price of a box of cereal the same (but reduce the mass on the sly).
There is always a group on the fringe, regardless of political faction, that wants the most extreme version of a policy.
The existence of such groups doesn’t mean that serious policy makers are actually on board with that extreme, nor do the majority of folks who support a more nuanced application of the policy (e.g. change how police are funded vs “defund”).
So I hear you, and yes, those people exist, but giving too much credence to the extremist position and wielding it as a scary straw man against the movement is also problematic.
The converse of your complaint is true - people pretending the extremes don’t have any power, and using the benign version of the phrase as cover.
Who wouldn’t agree with channeling funds to more appropriate professionals to deal with non-criminal situations that the police are currently drawn into?
The problem is not with this reasonable sounding policy objective. It’s that there are real policy makers who do mean abolish.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
The New York Times is not known for publishing ‘extremism’. It publishes mainstream opinions.
It’s not just bad messaging. Police reformers got behind an inflammatory and extreme slogan and realized after the fact that they had overplayed their hand and overestimated support for the extreme position.
"Defund the police" is a broad slogan endorsed by supporters of everything from police reform to police abolitionists. That makes it hard to know what anyone is talking about in terms of defunding the police. When someone says "Well, I think we have to have police" then the defund advocate can just explain what the phrase "really means" (to that specific advocate).
To use just a single rock from your comic example - saying "I think we should invest in job placement, education, and drug addiction programs to help mitigate the homeless problem" is really different from saying "Defund the police." For one thing, it lets people know what you are talking about - reducing the burden that homeless people place on police by reducing the number of in-need homeless. Suggesting a specific solution also focuses the conversation on solving problems.
Defunding the police is pretty unpopular[1]. The idea is opposed by the majority in all demographics, both major political parties, and supported by only 18% of Americans. My intuition is that solutions to specific sub-problems with policing (e.g. how will you address homelessness) would be much more popular and productive. Plus, you need to have the alternate solutions in place prior to defunding the police.
1- https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/...
Police in other countries though…