Hacker News Reader

Comment by devindotcom | Hacker News Reader

This is the original report by investigative reporter John Archibald: https://www.al.com/news/2022/01/police-in-this-tiny-alabama-...

Some notable points collected by a commenter on another site:

- "...just one of the 10 Brookside vehicles is painted with police striping, but nine others bear no emblems..."

- "...officers wear gray uniforms with no Brookside insignias."

- "The names of the officers were not listed on the tickets in secretive Brookside."

- "[the city budget] did not feature a breakout of the police department."

- "Asked in December how many officers were on staff, [the police chief] refused to say, citing “security” concerns..."

- "[The mayor and the police chief] said neither the town nor the police department relies on the revenue officers bring in. In fact, they said in November they didn’t know how that money is spent."

As others have pointed out, this sort of thing is not exactly rare, this is just a particularly egregious example of it. And this is after decades of attempts to 'reform' the police. When people talk about defunding or abolishing the police, they refer to razing systems like this (or parts like this in larger departments) to the ground, rethinking and rebuilding based on the needs of the community.

View on HN

Ok, we've changed the URL to that from https://jalopnik.com/this-tiny-alabama-town-of-1-200-has-bee.... Thanks!

Doing Always Naturally Great

Sorry to say but who ever decided that the phrase "defund the police" is good or smart made a huge mistake. Or they may have deliberately picked a phrase that would upset and confuse a large number of people. It has split the political discord right down the middle and you will never get proper reform.

The phrase that should have been used is "reform the police" because it would get almost every one aboard even the police themselves. Nothing is perfect in this world and almost every one can think of a way to improve something.

This decade of attempt to reform the police most people didn't know or care about. This new movement could have brought it to light and get something done that everyone can agree on. Instead it turned into a left vs right shit show.

They had been trying to "reform" the Minneapolis police (where George Floyd was killed) for years, but the police union had successfully blocked even the most moderate changes. There are similar stories everywhere.

"Defund the police" is a good slogan because it makes it clear that you have to pick a side - the police have made it clear that "reform" is not going to be possible through cooperation. This isn't to say that there aren't plenty of individual officers who would support, or at least not obstruct, reform, but without destroying the existing institutions (police unions, primarily) that perpetuate the status quo, and disempowering the individuals who are committed to it, nothing is going to change.

“Defund the police” is one of the most shockingly terrible slogans I’ve heard in my life. I know a lot of life long Midwestern Democrats that gasped in utter dismay when they heard this term and saw that yup, this is in fact what our party is going with.

It inspired some of the most insane and vile hatred I have ever witnessed.

Not being able to see that really just means you are out of touch with huge swaths of Americans of every political persuasion.

"Defund the police" is not a slogan. It's a policy demand.

It's not designed to appeal to Midwestern life-long democrats. It's designed to fix a problem.

The activists promoting the demand are out of touch with huge swaths of Americans, but by symmetry, that means huge swaths of Americans are out of touch with the activists who, through their activism, research, and personal experience, know the nature of policing in America is closer to Brookside, Alabama than to what their Elementary school teachers told them about the police.

> "Defund the police" is not a slogan. It's a policy demand ... designed to fix a problem

The "police" in this article are not a cost center, but rather a profit center. So, problem fixed?

I agree that the cancerous police budgets consuming municipal budgets is a problem, but the even deeper problem is that they're not bound by the law they purport to uphold. "Defund" does nothing to advocate for legal accountability, which is the primary problem.

There is no shortage of people all over the political spectrum who absolutely abhor the status quo of law enforcement in the US. You could have had the problem fixed already if you a) didn't go off half cocked with a stupid slogan that appeals to pretty much nobody b) thrown the conservatives a bone by abolishing the ATF or something.

Videos of unarmed people constantly being murdered by police had no effect on the public after activists shouted "defund the police". Silly.

I'm more inclined to believe corporate media convinced people the phrase was an issue.... most people dont have a problem with it, they were just given an opinion to parrot.

I like to contrast it with "black lives matter" by asking, if you literally succeeded, what would be the new reality. With "black lives matter" you'd be in a reality where everyone agreed that black lives matter. Which is great! With "defund the police" you'd be in a reality without any police forces. Not so great.

Locally we have an organization called "stop having kids". It's so dumb. If they succeeded literally, humanity would die out. They say it's a great slogan because it gets people talking. That's a lousy defense.

If you're trying to win elections, it's probably a bad battle to pick. But if you actually want to reform the police, it's a battle you are going to have to fight. I'll leave it to the galaxy brains to determine what the appropriate balance between the two is.

People who don't live in areas of police corruption don't know this and will "vote" for the other side because they don't know what is meant with defund the police.

Right, because the intended meaning is different than what the words literally say.

Defund means "withdraw funding for", not "withdraw all funding for".

That is literally incorrect. You can google "defund" and the first definition is "prevent from continuing to receive funds". And it's common usage, as well - anytime a government passes a bill to "defund" a bill or a department, it means they are basically without money.

Saying I'm "literally incorrect" just makes me wonder what "figuratively incorrect" would mean in this situation.

You've made multiple comments under this article about how "defund" can only possibly mean removing 100% of funding. Sometimes other people use words differently from the way you do personally. You need to adapt your interpretation to their usage, not the other way around.

No I have not. I've made multiple comments about how "defund" is often, and reasonably (see definition and common usage), interpreted as such. Just expecting people to adapt their interpretation in the figurative way you want is not reasonable, and is not a winning political strategy either.

It’s not necessarily a good slogan if you live in a high crime area, where better or more policing might be highly desired. At least in the press, people calling for the defunding of the police were often co-located with some of the more violent riots of the last few years. I can appreciate that there are arguments to suggest that this is a false comparison. However, it must be admitted that the slogan was confusing and divisive, whereas not all issues around policing were nearly as divisive. (For example, there was broad support, and rightly so, for the jury verdict in the George Floyd case. )

Everywhere in the US is a high enough crime area that people need the police to feel safe.

A feeling of safety comes from within. Establishing a brutal traumatizing system that isn't oriented toward healing doesn't create a culture of safety, but of emotional codependence on violence.

"A feeling of safety comes from within." --- This is an actively counterproductive statement. Just look at the impetus behind "defund the police": the real police violence causes people of color to feel unsafe. On the flipside, crime often involves real violence that makes people feel unsafe. You can argue that policing isn't the answer to crime, but real danger is the root of feeling unsafe, even if (like everything) it is mediated by perception. A "culture of safety" must be rooted in a reality of safety.

Why?

I have lived in NYC and Bay area. Both times safe places in those areas. And sure I have never seen a crime happen.

But very close to me (like 15 min of walking), there are major armed crimes happening. There are enough guns and people willing to use them in this country that it is just not safe without the police.

There are many reasons for this, I probably agree with most of them, but until they are all solved we need the police.

I grew up in Norway, did not feel like this there at all. Of course crime does still exist, but I would not care how far it was to my local police station.

Also lived in the UK, felt very safe compared to the US.

why do you consider "the police" a single unified group (aside from some "individual officers")? "the police" are not a federalized entity (yet(??)), so it seems at the very least disingenuous, but also possibly dangerous, to lump tens of thousands of people from disparate cities and counties and states into a single amorphous group, and then generate a slogan that "makes it clear you have to pick a side" on how you feel about them.

has anything good come from this pattern of overgeneralizing and then generating purposefully disingenuous propagandistic terms to force people to "pick a side"?

> why do you consider "the police" a single unified group

Police unions are strong in this country. The police are definitely on an organized and unified front in regards to this. Saying "the police" referring to a "single unified group" is normal in every-day conversation in this country.

> "the police" are not a federalized entity (yet(??))

We have police that are federal in this country. "Federal police officer" is an actual term.

> it seems at the very least disingenuous [...] to lump [...] thousands of people [...] into a single amorphous group, and then generate a slogan that "makes it clear you have to pick a side" on how you feel about them.

The police are an organized force in this country protected and backed by local and federal governments. I feel like it's a weird and reductionist to say we can't address systemic issues with police as a group. I think we should both address the individualistic issues happening, as well as address the systemic issues that police are facing as an organized group.

Also - who cares if someone picks a side? In regards to the police I have been held at gunpoint for holding my wallet up in a dark car to see if I had my bank card. They thought it was a weapon I was brandishing toward them - it was not. My point here is that if/when the police suspect you of wrongdoing they will immediately be "picking a side" so why shouldn't I be able to pick a side?

> We have police that are federal in this country.

of course we have federal officers, but "the police" are not federalized, and hopefully that distinction and the reason for making it are clear. there is a huge difference between the current state of affairs vs. a world where our nation's police force was actually federalized & centrally managed. we don't live in that world, and pretending that we do, when we don't, but we easily could, isn't a very good idea.

> I feel like it's a weird and reductionist to say we can't address systemic issues with police as a group.

I never said that. where did I say that?

> Also - who cares if someone picks a side?

the problem isn't so much picking a side as it is in presenting any sort of political rhetoric in black-and-white, zero-or-one, left-or-right binaries—especially when distortionary, obfuscating memes/slogans are used to do so. this is literally the single biggest problem in contemporary politics. all nuanced discussion on an issue is lost when you frame things in terms of, "pick a side, you're either with us, or you're with the Nazis/etc. etc." ("well actually I take issue with this one aspect of what you're saying." "you would, Nazi! I knew you weren't really on Our Side.")

overgeneralizing issues and using propagandistic slogans literally designed to inflame and polarize, specifically in order to bifurcate the perception of reality among the general populace, has yet to be proven to actually solve anything—it really just seems like it makes people feel good for joining Team A or Team B, feeling righteous about being on The Correct Side Of The Issue, and vitriolic toward The Other Side. it's a great way to lead a country into a downward spiral nosedive toward destruction, and it's been highly effective so far—maybe we should stop and take notice of this phenomenon and take steps to rectify it!

> of course we have federal officers, but "the police" are not federalized

Huge swaths of police officers in this country are federal police officers - that was my only point. You made a claim that made it seem like police officers were not "federalized" yet and I rebutted that federal police are absolutely a thing.

I don't want to go off on a hypothetical tangent about a centrally managed police force.

---

> me: I feel like it's a weird and reductionist to say we can't address systemic issues with police as a group.

> you: I never said that. where did I say that?

The comment I responded to is as-follows (your words):

1. why do you consider "the police" a single unified group (aside from some "individual officers")?

2. "the police" are not a federalized entity (yet(??))

3. it seems at the very least disingenuous, but also possibly dangerous, to lump tens of thousands of people from disparate cities and counties and states into a single amorphous group

You are making a very clear argument against addressing police as a group, to the point of calling it "disingenuous" and "possibly dangerous." You make a very direct argument here and I think it's disingenuous to claim that you "never said that."

And with that specific bit - I'm done reading your post, and I'm done conversing with you on this topic.

> Huge swaths of police officers in this country are federal police officers - that was my only point.

right which is why "defund the police" is once again such a ridiculously overgeneralized thing to say! there's 17985 police agencies in the country, which includes federal, state, county, and city officers. each one of these things is wildly different from the other, and you're just throwing them all together and saying "defund 'em all," as though that could possibly be a solution to such a complex problem.

here's where the miscommunication lies, I believe:

put aside for a second why "reform the police" isn't a great slogan to get anything done (I agree btw)—let's say the idea of reforming police corruption had never been floated before, and then when "defund the police" came about, instead the slogan was "reform the police." in this hypothetical world, I would have much, much less of an issue with the idea of collecting all the police from all the disparate parts of the country and lumping them together. the reason for this is that if you live in a small town with a small local police department that is well-liked and good and fair and all that, then the locals could very easily agree that "the police," in general, should be reformed, but that the local cops are doing fine as is. you wouldn't be choosing them to "pick a side" ("for the police" or "against the police"), you're merely asking people to acknowledge that, in many places in the country, the police are not as just and good as your local cops, and as long as we can all agree that that's the case, then we can maybe start to work together to make things better for everyone.

instead, when you say "defund the police," you're alienating these same people who don't have a problem at all with their local police, especially in smaller towns and cities, because you're essentially instilling cognitive dissonance upon them, asking them to hold both "all police should be defunded" and "but idk I think my local cops are alright" in their heads at the same time. cognitive dissonance in values like this leads to political/ideological zealotry which doesn't accomplish anything other than dividing people and making everyone feel worse, while nothing really changes because your movement's explicitly stated goals (even if you don't actually mean "defund," it's what you're saying) are beyond the pale for many, many people. this is how you bifurcate and demoralize a population, and it's working fantastically.

---

response to below comment:

> This is textbook moving the goalpost. Your original point was that we shouldn't make general statements about police, which is clearly nonsense. If you have other problems with "defund the police" as a slogan that's a separate issue.

how are any goalposts being moved when my initial post ended with

> has anything good come from this pattern of overgeneralizing and then generating purposefully disingenuous propagandistic terms to force people to "pick a side"?

it's called establishing a position and then building it up over the course of debate, I thought I made my overarching position here pretty clear: propagandistic overgeneralizations and slogans specifically designed to inflame and divide rather than unite are the single biggest threat we face as a nation today, and are quite rapidly bringing about the decline of the Republic as our perception of reality splits roughly in two.

This is textbook moving the goalpost. Your original point was that we shouldn't make general statements about police, which is clearly nonsense. If you have other problems with "defund the police" as a slogan that's a separate issue.

the police see themselves as a single unified group. this is actualized through culture (thin blue line, sheepdogs), organization (80% unionized, literally the state), and informal local agreements (gangs, corruption, coverups)

Because every police department is organized in the same general way and has the same incentives. It's not at all about the individual officers - it's that organizing the police in this way has a corrupting influence. (Or, at best, it attracts people who wish to abuse power in various ways.)

As mentioned upthread, this story of the small town that has turned into a front organization for a police force that, were they not operating under the label "police," would be a gang of highwaymen, is a pattern that repeats itself a lot! When you see something that happens repeatedly from many different individuals who all happen to be in the same circumstance, Occam's Razor demands you at least consider investigating the circumstance and not the people.

There are almost certainly a large number of genuinely good and kindhearted and well-intentioned people in the employ of various police departments. They should leave their jobs, lest they stop being good and kindhearted and well-intentioned and become dangerous to society. Ideally, they would do that of their own free will; alternatively, we can defund their payroll. I have no problem with the individual former police officer merely by virtue of their former employment, and I am more than happy to judge them as an individual on their own merits.

might it be possible that entire police/county sheriff departments are actually generally good people who don't do anything wrong? when you frame things as "'the police' are bad, except for some individuals," you are implicitly discounting this possibility, instead choosing to make broad sweeping statements about tens of thousands of people spread across millions of square miles, in wildly differing settings, with wildly differing local circumstances.

(I will refrain from commenting on your last paragraph so as to not get into an ideological flamewar.)

Well, I am not actually framing things as "'the police' are bad, except for some individuals." Sorry if that was unclear.

I really don't think it is either well-defined or relevant whether the individuals are "good" or "bad." As an analogy that is hopefully clear at the risk of being a little inflammatory: almost all of the 18-year-old conscripts of any random country you might be at war with have absolutely zero influence over the political direction of that country. But that doesn't change the fact that people handed them a gun and told them (even, perhaps, forced them) to shoot at you. They can be utterly kind and friendly individuals (see e.g. the World War I Christmas truce), but if they're about to shoot at you, that's a problem regardless of whether they're kind. When someone says "The XYZ army is about to invade us," it makes no sense to say "Well most of the XYZ soldiers are good people!"

And no, the distinction is not whether they're actually shooting at you. If they're lined up on the border ready to invade, if they're in training camps practicing shooting, if they're not assigned to be a footsoldier but they are assigned to build infrastructure and implement logistics for the invasion, etc., they're contributing to the invasion, and you'd still say that the entire invading army needs to be stopped. Saying that most of the invading army hasn't seen active combat yet and therefore isn't personally culpable is also nonsensical.

Or put another way - in gang-ridden territories or in post-war countries ruled by warlords, it's often the case that gang members or soldiers will do things to genuinely benefit the people who live there, running essential food and medicines across blockades, keeping people safe from other gangs or warlords, etc. That hardly justifies the gang or the warlord as a good government, though!

Every single person who works for a police department, without exception, works for an organization that is doing bad things. If, somehow, the specific things they do as individuals are good, when they do them on behalf of the organization, it serves to increase the legitimacy of that organization to gain more power and do more bad things in the future. If they are good people who haven't incurred personal moral culpability for doing anything wrong, great! I'm not in the business of judging souls for heaven or hell. I'm in the business of having opinions, as a citizen of a republic, about how that republic should be constituted.

> Every single person who works for a police department, without exception, works for an organization that is doing bad things.

I find this assertion, combined with the final paragraph from your previous post, interesting—given the very loose and broad criteria of "doing bad things" here, could you not replace "police department" with "government"? if so, then should your previous post's third paragraph not also apply to all employees of city, county, state, and federal governments as well?

if this is your end goal: uh, do you know anyone who's hiring?

Well… Every single person who votes in an election , without exception, votes for an organization that is doing bad things.

The simplest thing to do to solve this problem is just do away with elections, no?

There are in fact multiple political movements, from all sorts of perspectives, that refuse to vote because they don't want to grant legitimacy to an organization they have problems with! This is certainly a position I've seen on the American far left about our elections, but you also see it from entire political parties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_boycott), and there's the more interesting position where Sinn Fein to this day gets elected to Parliament and refuses to participate or vote on things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstentionism).

So, yes, I think that's a defensible position, and if you wanted to characterize my decision to vote as evidence that I believe that my government as an institution is salvageable and not inherently hopeless the way I believe the police as an institution are, I don't think you'd be wrong.

The other thing is that you wouldn't really do away with elections, you'd do away with the whole organization (the government) that you're electing people to. Which is, in fact, the anarchist position, and I think that position is also defensible.

This argument is hopelessly generalizable. Who in the world would does it not apply to!? Literally ever organization does “bad things” sometimes. That’s just the nature of groups of people. You are throwing out the baby with the bath water if you disregard kind, degree, personal involvement, etc.

That is exactly why it is stupid, if you force people to pick sides they will pick the police. I don't really love them, but I also don't want them gone and would not feel safe with no police.

I am super left wing, but if you force me to pick a side I am choosing the police without much thinking.

I understand not everyone thinks like this, but if you want to win elections in a two party system you need a broad coalition. You will not find a broad coalition that is willing to pick the side you want here.

You should instead actually consider the side being offered here instead of seemingly rejecting it over a slogan.

Police duties are expensive and stretched pretty thing, and thus they get funding for things that should not be within the purview of policing. A classic example is police response to mental health crises, and the frankly bizarre and spurious justification that creates for outlawing suicide. Far too often, people need help but are sent a militarized police response instead.

A retort to this is frequently around the suicidal person being armed and therefore needing armed police, but that seems to me like exactly what you should expect when sending heavily armed wannabe-soldiers to bust down the door of someone who needs a doctor or a therapist. Predictable fear responses are used as justification to continue or even escalate the problem rather than address it systemically.

Hold on so if someone is intending to kill themselves with a gun, so cops that come have guns, the only reason a person has a gun suddenly becomes to defend themselves from the police? What happened to the original gun? Am I just parsing this wrong?

The original gun probably wasn’t going to be fired at all. A trained responder could talk then down. But throw in a hostile force and you’ve increased the likelihood of a shootout.

Also it may not even have been a gun. The police will also treat a knife or a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon and respond with lethal force.

I don't think so, if there is a gun the police is coming with guns. That is true even in Norway. Once you start waving around a gun or something that looks like a gun with some threats as well you will be taken seriously. With one very possible consequence that you will be shot.

Defund the police is not solving this situation. It could solve a lot of situations more calmly but not this one.

Which has nothing to do with "Defund the police". People hear "defund the police" and take it to mean literally defunding them, with zero budget.

You are making life choices without much thinking, by your own admission. You're allowed to do that.

Some of us choose more thoughtful paths and recognize 2-party systems as inherently abusive because they're out of alignment with reality, which is inherently nonbinary.

You are making life choices without much consideration of political and electoral reality, by your own admission. You're allowed to do that. Some of us choose more pragmatic paths and recognize that our individual dislike for 2-party systems does ~nothing to change the fact that we actually physically currently live in a 2-party system which is inherently binary.

If you want to win elections, build coalitions. If you want to rant about how abusive the current system is, you can do that, but don't expect to actually win anything.

I don't allow existing systems to limit my thinking like that. Optimizing a part or feature of a system that doesn't need to exist is an element of dumb design. Pragmatism demands exploring ideas beyond the existing systems, otherwise we'll remain trapped in them.

The system can only be changed by the current political parties, so at the very least you need to build a coalition to change the system.

That's definitely disempowerment talking. There's nothing stopping anyone from creating an alternative government that meets more needs and is more fun to interact with. If it accomplishes that and people are willing to implement it and it doesn't violate laws by existing, then how does any preexisting system prevent people from switching over to it, aside from locking up people who use the new system?

Disruption isn't just for companies.

I don't even understand what you are talking about. Will this new government control the military/police/taxation? If not then it is just another burden for me. And the old government will still be around so you achieved nothing.

I am all for disruption but I really don't know what your plan is. And please understand that disruption is not always good for everyone. A lot of people depend on our current government to survive.

I'm trying to point out the system can be changed from the outside. That's it. I'm not trying to tell you how to do it. I'm simply pointing out it's possible.

Thinking on this more this conversation reminds me of the new programmer who joins the team and then starts advocating we rewrite everything in Rust, when we need to ship in two weeks. Yes, there might be a perfect system. No, we do not live in or possess this perfect system. Any reform, any positive change, needs to be based on where we actually are. Saying this is how things should be does approximately nothing to get us there. Refusing to engage with the current system does nothing to get us there. disparaging the current system does nothing to get us there. The only thing that actually moves the needle is sitting down and fixing things one little bug at a time. It isn't fun or glamorous and there certainly isn't a divisive slogan for it, but that is reality as I know it.

It's possible to envision a new systemand map a transition from old to new.

Iterative, incremental design is one way change can happen, not the only way.

Good lord yes. The second I heard the phrase "defund the police" I immediately had a vision of the conservative attack ads:

Open on an elderly woman, sitting quietly at home knitting. Suddenly we hear a window smash, and we see a burgler, in a ski mask and everything, attacking her window with an axe. She lets out a scream and runs for her landline. She dials 911, breathing heavily, and says "Hello, I need help-". But an automated voice on the other line cuts her off "we're sorry, due to recent funding changes, the operating hours of emergency services has been reduced. To leave a message, please stay on the line". As the voice drones on, we zoom in on the phone, hear a muffled scream, and the phone drops dramatically onto the floor. Fade to black, brought to you my Americans for a more American America.

... I mean seriously, the attack ad writes itself. I would honestly donate money every month to a nonprofit who's sole job was to find progressive activists, and run whatever shit they are saying through a focus group. I'm in favor of police reform and everything those activists are saying, but they need to get their shit together.

> Sorry to say but who ever decided that the phrase "defund the police" is good or smart made a huge mistake.

Yet we're here talking about it, repeating the phrase. So I disagree.

Exactly how I feel - any softer language would be forgotten and swept aside. I've heard the "police reform" drum being banged on my entire life with little to no effect - I don't blame them for trying a new slogan that cuts deeper.

The middle class, the main power center in America, rarely interfaces with the police. When they do the police are very nice and polite to them and provide a sense of safety, help, and support. They are viewed as super heros.

The lower classes are not treated like this in any way, shape, or form. My family spent many years being targeted and harassed by local small town police in various jurisdictions. Driving a car that is more than ten years old is a great way to attract police attention. Driving a new F-150, they just smile and at you and hollar "Nice truck!".

It did cause me to get very aquianted with my civil rights though. At the end we were pretty good at thwarting the harassment using a variety of methods to assert our rights.

When I was 18 I ran over two brothers on purpose and skipped town. They were on drugs and beating someone in my passenger seat to death. Their sister blocked the front of my car so I threw it in reverse and floored the gas. They were inside the passenger door that was open, sweeping them under the car (a Ford Thunderbird).

Anyway, when the police caught up with me at work the officer saw that I was a clean cut white boy with a new car and decided on the spot that I had already been punished enough (after confirming I was there to buy/sell drugs). My car door was wasted. He just chuckled and left after mentioning the brothers were still in the hospital in really bad condition.

I thought for sure I was going to prison. I have more stories like this.

> The middle class, the main power center in America…

I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

The power in America is at the very top with wealth and favors. The middle class has no real say in anything. I’m pretty sure most people would agree that they have no pull with their congress people after voting. But ultra wealthy people sure do.

Edit: I left out corporations and lobbyists.

> Exactly how I feel - any softer language would be forgotten and swept aside

It's not as if they only had this one horrible slogan and everything else is "softer language" or exactly the same. Yes, a new slogan that has some bite was a good idea, the one they went with was a horrible mistake that only made it harder for them to accomplish their goals.

Many many people want changes to the way police operate, no one wants a police force that doesn't have any funding.

Just because we're here talking about how terrible it is doesn't mean that it isn't also hurting the actual cause. The cause isn't to get people to repeat or discuss a slogan, but to make dramatic reforms to police. The slogan hurts that effort by turning people who'd otherwise agree to reforms against supporting the movement. It's a horrible slogan that has made it harder to accomplish the actual aim of police reform.

It's almost like slogans aren't politics, but just a way of summing up something you don't want to think too hard about...

"Make America Great Again" means literally nothing. At least defund the police states a concrete goal. Don't even get me started on how bastardized "Critical Race Theory" has become.

> At least defund the police states a concrete goal.

A goal that no one wants. Every one wants police to exist. That means they want police to be funded. The minute that slogan reached the public conservatives started with "If they are successful you won't have police when you are in danger because they will have no funds to help you". The slogan has done more to hurt the changes of meaningful change than to help it.

Counterpoint: I do not want police. I do not want policing to exist. I do not want the police to have a single penny of public funds.

The slogan is not the problem. People wanting police in its current form are the problem.

Without any police how would you suggest people in a city deal with a murder? Who would investigate it? Who would arrest the person responsible? Who would enforce contracts? What would stop anyone from taking anything they could take by force? Not wanting police publicly funded (“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” style) is absurd enough, but to think that policing as a whole doesn't need to exist at all is a new take I hadn't seen before. What's the alternative?

https://defundthepolice.org/alternatives-to-police-services/

I appreciate the responsive, but that's a very poorly thought out piece. It gives a very small number of very specific cases where police (supposedly) aren't needed at all, and others where they could be replaced but fails to say what they'd replace them with beyond "civilian services". The police are a "civilian service". Police officers are civilians.

It also fails to address what the difference is between police and "civilian services" that perform exactly the same function, what will stop the new service providers from becoming exactly what the current one has become, or how breaking up the current organizational structure into multiple entirely separate organizations tasked with extremely limited roles would produce greater efficiencies and effectiveness.

I agree that police are poorly suited for mental health work and I think we would be much better off getting mental health professionals in that role to help the person in crisis, probably along with police backup (for safety). Police do a very poor job of both helping people with mental illness and keeping people safe while responding to mental health crisis, but with oversight and accountability they could do one of those things very well.

I agree that traffic cops don't need to be armed to the teeth to pull over speeders and that they shouldn't use unmarked cars, but I think it's pretty useful that when they pull someone over they can see if they are a wanted criminal, determine if the car they are driving has been stolen, and arrest people who are intoxicated. They can do those things because they are working under a single organization. The cop pulling over speeders has access to criminal databases updated by other police officers in other departments (like the ones dealing with homicide, missing persons, and stolen cars) and can take dangerous people to a jail cell to be watched over by jailers who are also other police officers. Having all those different types of officers under one umbrella organization means that hiring practices, training, and polices can be consistent between them, that inter-departmental communications can flow easily, and that oversight can be simplified and consolidated. Imagine how much more work it would take to get multiple different "civilian" organizations to work together, handle passing around access to highly sensitive information securely, and to monitor them all individually.

They entirely hand-wave police preventing and stopping violence by saying that "In most incidents of violent crime, police are responding to a crime that has already taken place." which is great for "most incidents" but none of the rest of them. They say police are "ill-equipped" to investigate crime, ignoring the fact that every crime that has ever been investigated and justice was served happened because they did their job. Yes, there are problems, but no alternative organization has ever done a better job and they say nothing about why or how their "specialized service" would.

Ultimately their plan to replace police with "New Police but somehow also not connected to an institution of policing" isn't compelling. All of the fundamental problems with oversight and regulation are still unsolved. All of the problems with police unions and the relationship between law enforcement and the court system are still unsolved. It's "New Police", but less organized, and less capable.

It's a whole lot easier to reform and manage one system, than try to reform and manage countless separate unaffiliated systems trying to do the exact same job in different ways. Change is needed, and not all of their ideas are terrible, but there's no reason we couldn't accomplish them without making the problem larger and harder to manage and there's no indication on that website as to why that wouldn't be case with hundreds of totally separate New Police forces doing the same essential job of policing.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/6/12/21283813/g...

https://www.8toabolition.com/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2020/05/30/bad-ap...

https://www.livescience.com/evidence-police-brutality-reform...

That pretty much sums up what I've seen so far. A lot of differing ideas about what defending the police means where the most extreme voices (abolish the police for example) offer zero explanations on how a society can get by without any law enforcement or why their alternatives would fair any better while more moderate takes deal solidly with reforming the system that we have.

I do get the frustrations expressed by those taking the more extreme view, but it comes off as more of an emotional outburst than a path forward. It's understandable to be frustrated and outraged enough to want to abolish policing entirely at this point, but it's also not constructive or helpful.

The good thing is that everybody is pretty clear on what the problems are, but I fear that those seeking radical/counterproductive changes to society like getting rid of police entirely will hold back the rest of us either by rejecting anything that doesn't burn the justice system to the ground, or by convincing others that there's no hope in reformation of what we have today while offering no actual solutions leading people to feel helpless and defeated at a time when the message people need is "Change is possible and necessary, we just need to insist on it and work to make it happen"

Good, because it’s gotten people to realize the police weren’t coming to help when you were in danger anyway.

Not that audience. They already felt that depending only on police for protection was stupid. They buy guns so they can protect themselves and their families. They still depend on police though.

Conservatives are fearful by nature. They always suspect that some group of "others" is out there just waiting to take everything they love from them. Many of them live in rural/remote areas where "others" aren't as prevalent and police response times are poor. They still love police though, in part because they want to feel safe and protected, but also because they like to see "others" being punished. They really love punishment. They're convinced that fear of punishment is the only thing standing between order and chaos. The harsher the punishment, the more peaceful the world. Police represent order, safety, and help keep the "others" in control. Defunding them is not an option for these people.

> The phrase that should have been used is "reform the police" because it would get almost every one aboard even the police themselves.

Yeah, that's the problem with "reform", it is so meaningless that the very police that need to be reformed are all for it!

This is not a system that can be fixed, a ludicrous percentage, maybe as high as 95%, of current police will need to find a new line of work for policing to be fixed in the US.

"Reform the police"

Okay, we gave them hundreds of millions of dollars for body cams!

body cam footage not available, officer turned off prior to incident

For a pretty solid breakdown on why it's not likely to ever expect the cops to get on the side of checks notes taking funding and job security away from themselves: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-minneapo...

> officer turned off prior to incident

> it's not likely to ever expect the cops to get on the side of checks notes taking funding and job security away from themselves

Then align the incentives.

Harsher penalties for turning them off/disabling them/tampering with their wear protocol in any way.

Weave into the salary a financial bonus for long periods of time without incidents.

And since this is HN: Add some AI bullshit that reviews the tapes to make sure the cameras are not being covered or whatever with a secondary manual review by an outside entity to rule out false positives, make sure every police officer is aware of the automated review, and even if that system doesn't work perfectly I'm sure even a shitty government contractor can make it made good enough to put enough fear into enough corrupt cops so that camera shutdowns don't become routine.

I'm just going to go ahead and say that police unions wield outsized political power, which is why people who own the "abolish/defund the police" slogan think "reform" isn't enough. The reforms may get passed (or we might have another, more "important" political cause that sucks momentum away) but if the cops themselves are hostile to the reforms, they have plenty of ways to pull the teeth out of the regulations, or just get them overturned/taken out of the next CBA.

Police "unions" are exceedingly well-funded, well-networked groups that can apply a TON of political and electoral pressure. They also provide (very good/expensive) lawyers for any cop found guilty of an infraction. On top of that, the very act of prosecuting cops is essentially biting the hand that feeds you for a DA/AG.

The cops will always opposing things that make the job of being a cop harder. The same way a software developer does. You can't make the incentives align if the people who currently are police are the people you feel should not, under any circumstances, be the ones in charge of public safety. The number of low-grade thugs in the US police forces is pretty apparent when you look at the domestic violence numbers.1 Either abusive people are self-selecting into being cops, or being a cop makes you abusive.

TL;dr- You want "reform" because you think there's inherent value created by the current system, and I don't because I think the value is an byproduct and not the goal.

1-https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/07/20/do-40-of-police-...

"Defund the police" was born out of the anger within the Black activist community post the events of the George Floyd shooting. It wasn't something that was run through a PR firm and focus group tested, it was very much a primal scream of "fuck the system and burn it to the ground" against the establishment in its entirety.

Obviously, it became problematic once it was assimilated by the very machine it was raging against, but it was never meant to be palatable to the mainstream or politically correct.

I think you've articulated what the problems are -- that people are speaking out of anger, not carefully and thoughtfully.

Classical activists like Rosa Parks, MLK, and Frederick Douglass were careful, articulate, and thoughtful -- and they had far more of a positive influence because of it.

That's not to say that we should close our ears to people's political expressions, but advocating untenable policy never achieves much good, no matter how much feeling is behind it. We have to move beyond the primal screams and feelings toward thoughtful, articulate, actionable policy that makes good sense and has a net effect of building up society into something good instead of merely tearing it down. It's much harder and more important to build well than to tear down.

This is where good education becomes an absolute necessity. Instead of lowering standards and making school easier, we should focus on making it more accessible while keeping standards high. We need articulate, thoughtful, well-read people if we are to achieve a better society; I'm not talking about STEM -- while it's important, STEM helps people do, not think. How many of these modern activists have read Milton, Locke, Hegel, Descartes, or Aristotle?

So I see these problems (people talking about "tearing it all down") as primarily a symptom of a lack of good education.

> Classical activists like Rosa Parks, MLK, and Frederick Douglass were careful, articulate, and thoughtful -- and they had far more of a positive influence because of it.

If we’re being honest about history it’s because these are the people that some choose to celebrate and elevate. They are certainly worthy of praise and remembrance, but especially with regards to the civil rights movement it was not all of even mostly pretty. Even then some people choose to ignore words from the “articulate” people mentioned that make them feel uncomfortable.

I think it’s pretty rich to deny good education and then complain when the neglected don’t speak in the preferred manner. There are plenty of educated and articulate people who have been making the same point for years and nobody listened.

> Even then some people choose to ignore words from the “articulate” people mentioned that make them feel uncomfortable.

If you're making good points that contradict what people believe, they'll ridicule or at least ignore you -- that's par for the course. We celebrate people like this because they persevered in doing good in the face of intense opposition.

> I think it’s pretty rich to deny good education and then complain when the neglected don’t speak in the preferred manner.

I'm not sure what your point is. I am promoting good education - I think the system as-is has to be reformed. People need good education, especially people trying to promote societal reform.

> There are plenty of educated and articulate people who have been making the same point for years and nobody listened.

For people who are promoting good causes, let's support them and encourage them to persevere despite how difficult it is to continue being ignored and/or persecuted. The truth will prevail in the end: "For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light." (Luke 8:17)

> If you're making good points that contradict what people believe, they'll ridicule or at least ignore you -- that's par for the course.

I think GP is saying people still ignore the point of those very people they're praising.

In particular, Republicans (and politicians in general) love quoting MLK, but weirdly, they never seem to remember the "white moderate" quote:

> I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

You're making the point that MLK was beloved and effective because he was thoughtful and articulate, but there wasn't a single day in his life that he wasn't disliked by the majority of white americans: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/17/mlk-is...

What made King popular was dying.

So, yes, wagging the finger at people shouting "defund the police!" and pointing to MLK as an alternative is pretty rich.

> What made King popular was dying.

That's a rather cynical view on a man whose influence during his life was incalculable.

Do you have any sources for that statement?

I wish the slogan "demilitarize the police" was used instead. Police should be thought of as peace officers, not a civilian policing militia.

When I hear the phrase, to me it's more about shifting resources from punishment based (policing), to community development in historically underserved minority communities. The effects of redlining mean we still have many highly racially segregated cities. It's directly acknowledging and confronting that history, which is uncomfortable for a lot of white people.

One can support both public safety and community development, and it's win-win if helping raise people up out of poverty reduces the need for police presence.

> When I hear the phrase, to me it's more about shifting resources from punishment based (policing), to community development

Nothing in the phrase "defund the police" says anything about any of that. It is the goal, but the slogan doesn't reflect that anywhere in any way. When you hear it, you think about the intended meaning, while the vast majority hears only what it actually says which is "remove funding from the police" and no one wants that.

Conservatives are fearful people and those against police reform took the opportunity handed to them and reinforced that very message: "If you let these liberals have their way they will make it impossible for police to protect you by defunding them". It's too bad because lots of people who would support reforms to police want nothing to do with any effort under the "defund the police" banner. No one wants a police force that doesn't have any funds.

> while the vast majority hears only what it actually says which is "remove funding from the police" and no one wants that.

The vast majority of white people? It's okay to be angry about state executions at the hands of police, and about the legacy of slavery. The wording reflects that anger. If it makes white people uncomfortable that's their problem. (This is coming from a white person who does not self-identify as "liberal")

>it would get almost everyone on aboard even the police themselves

I think at this point you need a national change and force new regulations down from the top. But the movement has turned into a left vs right issue and there will be no change from this government stalemate.

It's a bad slogan if it requires a 5 minute explanation when introducing the concept.

(Disclaimer: I don't fully agree with the position but I felt it there is context collapse[0] happening that I want to push back against because I think context collapse is deeply poisonous to intelligent conversation.)

My understanding is "defund the police" is actually within the context that efforts to reform policing as an institution in america have broadly failed, so the only solution to try and make less-shitty police is to burn the institution to the ground and rebuild anew. In that context, "defund the police" makes total sense from the perspective of an activist who is agitating for a better system of community safety.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_collapse

The phrase I would use, myself, is "abolish the police". "Defund the police" also adequately captures my view: "reform the police" does not. I do not want "proper reform."

There is clearly a need for some governmental mechanism for public safety: it's also clear that the police, as we know it are the wrong starting point, and if at all the existence of the police prevents crime, it's by coincidence.

(I also have no problem being partisan about my political views. They're political views! If you could get everyone of every political view to agree on something, it's probably ineffective. Standing up for specific strong viewpoints is a good thing.)

>Sorry to say but who ever decided that the phrase "defund the police" is good or smart made a huge mistake. Or they may have deliberately picked a phrase that would upset and confuse a large number of people.

I believe it was Black Lives Matter (an organisation whose name is literally a divisive statement) that coined that phrase, or at least popularised it.

To be honest with you, if you look at their actions, I'm not sure if the goal is to actually end police violence/abuse of power. If that did happen, all of these influential activists would suddenly be out of a "job".

The phrase is ubiquitous not in spite of its controversial nature, but rather _because of_ it.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage...

This is definitely one of the less-fun emergent phenomena of the internet and social media.

Personally this is why I believe in building better social media bubbles, as much as most people disagree with the concept of a social media bubble I think it’s the only way to stay sane

The problem is, "reform" is an extremely vague term that can be stretched from "rebuild completely" to "issue receipts to every subject of a police stop so that PoC can prove discrimination".

"Defund"/"Abolish" are crystal clear in their meaning.

But who wants to abolish the police? People these days read only headlines and you can not get people to vote for your movement when the title reads "abolish the police" and a few paragraphs down it says that you aren't for no police but a new police that is better etc.

Literally an HN commenter a few comments up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30014287

and the NYT running pieces like: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...

People need to stop with this gaslighting "No one ever meant abolish, it was always about lessening funding." It's not true and only hurts your cause when you don't acknowledge there are actual significant views more radical than your leanings.

OK but you can not remove/abolish something before you show/prove/build an alternative to take it's place.

Of course you can. With the despicable state some police departments are in, completely disbanding them without replacement would be the better alternative.

Minneapolis city council members were absolutely on board with abolishing the police department. They tried to get the police department removed entirely from the city charter, replaced with a "safety" department that could optionally hire police staff, if they felt it was necessary.

They have since backed off (and several were voted out of office). They also used "abolish" and "defund" interchangably, because defunding and abolishing the police department was the goal.

Edit: I also just noticed several comments in this thread explicitely calling for abolishing as the commenters believe reform is impossible.

I've long suspected that the "defund" moniker was maliciously attached by the other side, as a way of shaping the narrative. "Rebuild" or "reform" would sound entirely too reasonable. If you just repeat the inflammatory term loud enough and often enough, it becomes the de facto name for something even if it's almost entirely wrong. And then you spend the rest of your career tearing down the strawman that you built. It's very profitable.

The thing is, for most police reform activists, defunding the police is the key method by which reform takes place. I agree it’s bad branding, but it’s pretty obvious we won’t see substantial police reform unless we defund them. More police is not always the answer to more crime, sometimes it makes more sense to fund other civil services instead.

> The thing is, for most police reform activists, defunding the police is the key method by which reform takes place

“Defund” advocates distinguish themselves from “reform” advocates because they see the police reform movement as having made the problem worse by sucking money out of other local services into police budgets in the name of supporting reforms (leading to police role expansion as there are fewer other tools to handle local issues.)

They literally see “police reform” as a major source of current problems, not the solution.

(They can accurately be described as local government reform activists, but the central specific reform they support is reducing the resources and role of the local centralized paramilitary law enforcement entities, and distributing both resources and responsibilities elsewhere.)

> sometimes it makes more sense to fund other civil services instead

Such as? The US invests an absurd amount of money into education and a sizable amount on welfare. Both of which also seemingly suffer from efficiency issues.

Reform is really the only option when money stops being efficient. Over time, systems accumulate crusts of leeches who live off the system offering little in return, stealing resources from others who are more honest, by merely knowing what the weaknesses of the system are. It's at that point where reviewing and heavily reforming your rules until these people are screaming bloody murder becomes the only fix.

> but it’s pretty obvious we won’t see substantial police reform unless we defund them.

I disagree. While we can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to get better, we're going to have to invest in police far more than we have done to get real change. No one wants to live somewhere where police don't have the funds to do their job correctly. We all just want police to do their jobs correctly. That requires oversight and that requires funding.

We have to buy body cams for every officer and build/maintain the backend systems to support them, we have to pay for better training in deescalation tactics, we have to pay for better tracking of incidents and reporting, we have to pay for new hires to replace problem officers, we have to pay for independent oversight boards and community programs. There is a lot of work to do and all of it is going to require extensive funding.

Accountability is the key to reformation, not defunding. That means removing the police's ability to police themselves (something they've failed at) and having independent review boards handle minor issues while district attorneys and judges throw police behind bars for major ones. Changes are needed throughout the justice system to make this happen.

You have to invest in something to repair it, not starve it. Some reforms, like investing in mental health services, restricting civil asset forfeiture, and demilitarization will mean that some departments can get by with fewer officers and might shrink their budgets, but I suspect we'll just be spending much of what we save on oversight and training.

No, "defund the police" was the literal phrase used by activist proponents. It was not a perjorative used to describe the effort by "the other side".

The phrase I would have used is "pass the Obama police reforms." "Reform the police" is perhaps too vague - reform means different things to different people and status quo keepers are often celebrated as "reformers". On the other hand, Obama wrote a list of seven explicit reforms that police departments should make. They really aren't that controversial. And, Obama was going through a popularity surge (as Trump was going through an unpopularity surge).

I think such a slogan would have captured a solid 60-70% of the electorate, which the current "defund" rhetoric hovers around the high 30s.

Saying something measured and reasonable doesn’t get anyone talking at all. Creating a contentious debate gets you press.

In reality, the single issue should have been around qualified immunity. Get rid of that and the ducks will fall into line.

There are essentially 3 ways to get rid of qualified immunity:

1. constitutional amendment (3/4 of the states)

2. supreme court entirely throws it out (5 supreme court justices)

3. prosecutors (DAs, AGs & US Attorneys) chip away at it bit by bit

When a case comes before the supreme court they can essentially create a new set of circumstances that will no longer be qualified going forward. The problem with even making slow, incremental progress is that most prosecutors just don't seem to ever prosecute cops.

The problem is that you cannot expect an organization to effectively police itself. That's just a simple fact of life. Organizations will protect their own and refuse to admit wrongdoing until they are forced to by outside means. This is human nature. Prosecutors can't prosecute cops because they are part of the same system. The only way you hold the justice system accountable for miscarriage of justice is to have a completely separate body act as the check.

Might as well extend that to the other branches as well. Create a 4th branch of government who's only purpose and power is to jail members of the other branches who break the law since they can't be expected to police themselves and power corrupts all.

Kind of like how members of the military are subject to UCMJ courts. Civilian members of government should be subject to a court as well.

States can choose to make their personnel subject to lawsuits in defined circumstances.

Colorado, Connecticut, and New Mexico have done it --- e.g. https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/geor...

Wouldn't this result in increased polarization? For one side it would have the literal meaning and for the other it would have the sanewashed figurative meaning.

> When people talk about defunding or abolishing the police, they refer to razing systems like this (or parts like this in larger departments) to the ground, rethinking and rebuilding based on the needs of the community.

All too often arguments against this interpret 'defund' at the farthest possible extreme, but no one is calling for an end of law enforcement.

The reality is that providing constant budget increases for better weapons, faster cars, additional staff, etc. is causing the police to become more militarized. The Military are a defense against enemies. As police become more militarized their enemy becomes the civilians who they are meant to protect and serve.

The actual idea is to defund police departments as they are structured today, and allocate that money instead to social and mental health programs as well as law enforcement with a foundation in de-escalation and transparency.

Of course there would still be law enforcement to maintain peace and safety, and it would be based on transparency and accountability.

> no one is calling for an end of law enforcement.

There are several comments in this discussion calling for abolishing the police. Whenever this topic gets brought up, it usually seems like half the people are defending "Defund the Police" by saying that no one wants to get rid of the police, and the other half are defending "Defund the Police" by telling people why the police should be abolished.

And people with political power are calling for the abolishing them as well. This is Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib from last April:

> No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can't be reformed.

I'm not sure why people who want reform are so set on tying themselves to this slogan. If I starting chanting "Defund Public Schools!", I wouldn't expect anyone to interpret that as "remove bloat from school budgets and use the money to fund social services for the kids in order to lessen the burden on teachers and make public schools function better."

[1] https://twitter.com/rashidatlaib/status/1381745303997534216?...

I used the term 'law enforcement' and not the term 'police' intentionally as law enforcement is an umbrella while police are a specific group within it.

The way I see it the police subgroup could be defunded with new approaches deployed to maintain peace and safety, without needing to cease law enforcement as a whole.

> "...just one of the 10 Brookside vehicles is painted with police striping, but nine others bear no emblems..."

What I'm struggling with here is that the article says they have 8 FTE officers plus additional part-time / volunteer officers... so why do they have so darn many cars? Or to put it another way - my town of 35,000 has 48 FTE positions, 5 of which weren't filled this past year. That's in line with other communities of similar size that I've observed. So it puts the size of this department in perspective - it's a vey large headcount for the size of the community, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they are taking action either out of boredom or because someone is on the take.

> so why do they have so darn many cars?

So each FTE gets to use a top-of-the-line new SUV as a take-home vehicle.

Some sure. Certainly not all. I don't even think most. If I'm wrong, then the meme itself needs better phrasing.

> Some sure. Certainly not all. I don't even think most. If I'm wrong, then the meme itself needs better phrasing.

The meme lives in the gray space of non-specifism, where every person for or against imposes their preferred meaning

If you go to a somewhat authoritative source such as https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/ then you get

> We call for a national defunding of police. We demand investment in our communities and the resources to ensure Black people not only survive, but thrive.

But what does it mean to have “resources to … survive [and] thrive”? I would argue it implies a rethinking and rebuilding of policing based on the needs of the community, like GP claims. Another leftist might think it’s the anarchical approach. It’s vague, more or less intentionally

Its a Motte and Bailey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle

I think you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy :

    An arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, 
    one modest and easy to defend.. and one much more controversial....
    The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, 
    they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.

Thank you for pointing out this argument fallacy. I've certainly seen it and been unable to articulate what is going on and why it feels like an argument in bad faith, and now I have a name for it.

Not exactly. Motte and Bailey is a fallacy as an argument, but memes are not arguments. You can think of it as a distributed version of Motte and Bailey: someone out there surely is trying to actually abolish policing, but if you fish the internet for arguments in favor you only get people looking to reform

The answer, like to most of these kinds of issues, is to avoid arguing against internet memes. Have a debate with a singular person on an agreed upon position, or don’t debate at all.

I should think that the number of people who want to completely do away with the police is vanishingly small. Actually, it's probably about 3 people.

It seems like the right in the USA are being deliberately pedantic about the phrase "defund the police", to make it sound like those on the left are crazy.

It was originally “abolish the police” and it was a pretty widespread slogan in summer of 2020 for those of us who visited the BLM protests.

Perhaps they didn’t literally mean “do away with all police”, but no one was very explicit about what the slogan actually meant. And when the media tried to rationalize it as a metaphor (because it was so damaging to Democrats), many leftists corrected them, clarifying that they literally wanted police abolished.

In whichever case, we’re presently suffering the effects of these anti-police protests as homicides have surged to levels not seen in 30 years (whether due to official “depolicing” policies or soft pressure for police to minimize proactive policing or due to reduced cooperation from the community or so on). Whether they literally meant “no police” or some other policy, it’s pretty clear that all of this leads to more crime, and the communities who pay are predominantly poor and/or minorities.

Since virtually no police departments were "defunded" in any sense to any significant extent, it's not clear to me at all how that slogan or those protests contributed to any rising violence.

I refer you to the parenthetical in my third paragraph.

> whether due to official “depolicing” policies or soft pressure for police to minimize proactive policing or due to reduced cooperation from the community or so on

Note these findings regarding the St. Louis police department following the shooting of Michael Brown:

> In the immediate aftermath of Brown’s death, self-initiated arrests fell 62 percent. Similar declines are seen across nine out of 11 categories of self-initiated activities, including foot patrol (down 82 percent) and pedestrian checks (76 percent). Notably, the decline in arrests is concentrated among misdemeanor arrests (more discretionary than felonies) and among arrests of blacks (rather than whites). This reduction in police activity persisted for at least the next two years. In the same period, the city experienced a significant rise in homicide and aggravated assault.

https://www.city-journal.org/new-evidence-connects-police-pr...

Again I don't see how you're making the connection that any of these things are "due to" any others.

Crime does rise and fall over time and the reasons are notoriously complex and difficult to understand as it's happening. The police are certainly confident that anti-police sentiment leads to rising crime, but I don't have any reason to accept that evaluation right now.

There’s a lot of literature, some of which is touched on in the link I shared. In general:

1. Crime rarely surges so dramatically as it has in the last 6 years. Note that before 2014, crime had been trending down consistently for decades.

2. Homicides spiked all over the country following major BLM protests.

3. The counties with the largest BLM activity saw the largest decreases in proactive policing and commensurate increases in homicides.

How much more evidence is required (and how many additional thousands need to die) before we get folks on board to reverse these trends?

You got nonpartisan citations for those assertions? I’ve been unable to find anything to back 2 and 3.

By that same argument you have no reason to believe that pro-police sentiment causes an erosion of rights and safety.

These slogans we're indeed acted upon in several districts, which are indeed feeling the effects. See Portland for a prime example.

> whether due to official “depolicing” policies

My recollection is that there have been almost no depolicing policies actually made in effect. Not even the Minneapolis complete dissolution of the police by whatever whatever time. Several big cities even increased their police funding. The argument that homicides have surged because of depolicing first needs to prove that depolicing actually happened.

I would instead argue that an increase in homicides might be caused by an decrease in the general wellbeing of people when dealing with a pandemic. We're getting to the point where many people either know someone who has died or knows someone who knows someone who has died.

This is pretty well-established.

> The multicity analysis shows a similar pattern. Cheng and Long assume that a Ferguson Effect will be more common in cities with higher black population shares, so they compare those in the top quartile of black population against the other cities as a control. They identify the same phenomenon as in St. Louis: the blackest cities saw larger declines in arrests relative to those with smaller black populations, driven by a decline in misdemeanor arrests, and a simultaneous large (10 percent) increase in homicide.

> Both studies not only identify a decline in police activity and an increase in homicide after a high-profile incident but also argue that the nature of the decline in activity supports a “public scrutiny” mechanism for the effect. In particular, a drop in police activity for minor offenses drives the overall policing pullback. This fact supports a theory (as articulated by Premkumar) whereby officers reduce arrests that they deem “less important” in order to minimize public contact. That differs from a competing theory under which a loss of police “legitimacy”—which, in turn, reduces community engagement with the cops—drives the Ferguson Effect. If the competing theory were borne out, the study should have found reductions in arrests for offenses of all kinds.

https://www.city-journal.org/new-evidence-connects-police-pr...

But I just pointed out there's no evidence that policies are in effect. Your provided study is alarming but not at all supporting the specific language of your claim. Potentially the intention, but not the language.

My claim was about a combination of policies, pressure, and loss of trust, not policies alone. I don't purport to know the coefficients, but the cited studies do support my claim. I suspect the most damaging policies are unofficial--top down pressure from politicians to avoid an embarrassing incident and district attorneys who don't prosecute (why should officers risk a confrontation with a dangerous criminal if they can't trust prosecutors to keep them off the streets?).

How do protests against police violence lead to more crime? Not a single police budget was actually cut.

>> Not a single police budget was actually cut

"In fiscal 2020-2021, the Austin police budget was $292.9 million, down from $434.5 million the previous year. The City Council slashed $31.5 million directly from the police budget last year.

It also put $121.7 million in a reserve fund that was intended to 'decouple or reimagine some public-safety functions' from the police department but which ended up funding police operations, says Alicia Dean, a spokesperson for the city. The City Council also canceled three cadet classes and cut 150 officers from the budget last year, says City Councilor Mackenzie Kelly, an outspoken supporter of the police."

- https://www.wsj.com/articles/austin-texas-defund-the-police-...

The homicide rate went from 4.7 to 6.2. Yes, I know that doesn't prove causation. But if the homicide rate is going up 32% year over year I want more cops on the street not fewer.

https://www.city-journal.org/new-evidence-connects-police-pr...

If you can expect a murder charge for doing your job, don't expect many people to do said job: https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/unarmed-black-man-shot-dead-by...

I'm sure that if I killed someone while at work I would face criminal charges. And yet I still do this job. I think the key thing here is to not kill people, and definitely don't make it somebody's job to kill people.

Unless your job requires you to forcibly intervene between armed, violent offenders and their victims, I don’t see how this is relevant.

Police's job doesn't force them to intervene either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

You're confusing "forcibly intervene" with "forced to intervene".

> requires you to forcibly intervene

They are under no such requirement as shown by the citation.

They have the right to opt out of any given encounter, but the gist of law enforcement is intervening as you well know. Anyway, word lawyering is dreadfully boring and it seems that’s all you have to offer so I’m ducking out.

I disagree that addressing the core argument of your claim is "word lawyering".

Your original full claim

> Unless your job requires you to forcibly intervene between armed, violent offenders and their victims, I don’t see how this is relevant.

doesn't hold water when police are also not required to forcibly intervene between armed, violent offenders and their victims.

I'm sorry, but the point you're trying to make here is just bad. If some is running around with a knife stabbing everyone and the police just watched because 'they don't want to have to kill anyone's do you think that'd be ok?

That is the kind of thing the police force was designed to handle. Sometimes killing someone is the right thing to do when your job is dealing with situations like that.

In June of 2020, as I'm sure you recall, The New York Times published an opinion piece titled "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police".

Why do you think the New York Times was publishing opinions that you believe were only held by 3 people?

You of course also remember that when the New York Times published the opinion piece titled "Tom Cotton: Send In the Troops" arguing that the military should be sent in to stop riots and looting, there was a massive backlash and the editor for the opinion page resigned. This even though the opinion expressed by Tom Cotton was fairly popular.

I would think if the New York Times was publishing opinions that had no popular support at all, there would have been a backlash about that, wouldn't you?

One of these things is of doubtful constitutionality, the other is not. If Cotton suggested suspending habeas corpus would you want the Times to print that too?

From Cotton's opinion column itself:

"For instance, during the 1950s and 1960s, Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson called out the military to disperse mobs that prevented school desegregation or threatened innocent lives and property. This happened in my own state. Gov. Orval Faubus, a racist Democrat, mobilized our National Guard in 1957 to obstruct desegregation at Little Rock Central High School. President Eisenhower federalized the Guard and called in the 101st Airborne in response. The failure to do so, he said, 'would be tantamount to acquiescence in anarchy.'

More recently, President George H.W. Bush ordered the Army’s Seventh Infantry and 1,500 Marines to protect Los Angeles during race riots in 1992."

What Cotton suggested is expressly permitted by an act of Congress and that act has been invoked many times over more than two centuries. It's been used half a dozen times to suppress riots since the 1960's. Not one of those actions has ever been found to be unconstitutional.

Second, if Tom Cotton and only two other people in the entire US want habeas corpus suspended, than no, I would not want the Times to print an opinion column suggesting that. A poll had 52% of Americans agreeing with sending in troops to stop the riots. If Tom Cotton and 52% of Americans want habeas corpus suspended, then I think a paper that calls itself the "paper of record" is exactly where that case should be made.

Just as it would have been appropriate to make the case in those opinion pages for why we would send the 101st Airborne into Little Rock and Detroit, the 197th Infantry into Baltimore, the 1st Marines Division into Los Angeles, and military police to the Virgin Islands.

Its a social problem, largely driven by the FPP political system in the US.

The left hold up the opinions of the far right/right lunatics and say "see? this is how insane everyone on the right is"

The right hold up the opinions of the far left/left lunatics and say "see? this is how insane everyone on the left is"

The moderate left and the moderate right have far more in common with each other than they do with the extremes at either end, yet somehow each is convinced that the other is represented most accurately by the extreme edge.

I would like to believe this, but legislative outcomes on things that you'd expect to be bipartisan (like dealing with the pandemic) have been fairly poor, right? If there really was this large moderate population, you'd expect us to elect moderate elected officials, who'd find each other and pass some moderate legislation, right?

The primary process is not well attended my the normal voter, only those on the extremes. So to win the primary you have to go more extreme, then to win the general you have go more moderate. So we ended up having to choose between more extreme candidates that don't reflect the majority. In fact the majority of people don't identify as republican or democrat.

The extremes always vote, many moderates only bother to vote if you can convince them the other side are totally insane/evil/stupid and life as they know it is going to be over if the other side get into/remain in power.

So politicians in particular get very good at making the other side look extremely insane, evil and stupid.

The better they are at that (lying) the better they do in elections.

So...the politicians who would be good for us tend to have integrity and strong personal beliefs about lying, and so tend to do poorly in elections.

Which leaves us with everyone else.

The 'moderate' right and the 'moderate' right are both pretty insane when it comes to the police, because they largely support their current status quo, and their current status quo is insane. Pants-on-head insane.

Just because you're a centrist on <an arbitrary political spectrum, that spans a single country's politics> doesn't mean that the things you believe in aren't crazy or horrifying.

I think we get different facts about the characterization of US policing. If you look at extreme cherry-picked examples one way or the other, you tend to end up at the extremes. If you accept that reality is more nuanced and the good and evil police aren’t evenly distributed (and that the trite policies offered up by extremists do much more harm than good a la the current surge in homicides), etc then you’re probably much more likely to be a moderate on the issue.

The issue isn't that particular police officers are 'good' and 'evil', the issue is that systemically, the police, the justice department, and prosecutors collude to protect gang-like behaviour in police forces.

We give them absolute power over life and death, and zero accountability. The justice system is in theory, supposed to be a leash on that dog, but in practice, it's the other way around.

Sure, there’s a certain amount of injustice in policing. 90% of Americans agree that some form of police reform is necessary. Leftists lose the rest of us when they argue for depolicing reforms rather than reforms which increase accountability while keeping policing levels.

In particular, it stands to reason that increasing spending for social services isn’t going to pay dividends for many years, but following policing reductions, crime surges immediately and significantly. So again, the rest of us are puzzled by the folks who emphasize “depolicing” rather than some more reasonable policy of “increase social spending while also maintaining a robust police element, at least for the short term”.

> a la the current surge in homicides

How do police prevent homicides? Are people really out there thinking "the police department is 10% smaller than last year (but has a larger budget), I bet I could off my neighbor and get away with it"?

My understanding is that police have reduced their preventative policing activities either by policy or soft pressure. Criminals aren’t idiots—they can tell when police pressure goes up or down.

But like, what kind of preventative policing reduces homicides? Who's that person that's out murdering because they saw 10% less cop cars drive by?

A better explanation is that underlying social safety nets have been ripped out from under people for the past couple of years putting way more people in rough, quasi legal situations to get by that make them trend towards extralegal forms of dispute resolution like personal application of violence. Additionally suicides count as a homicide (it's technically a person killing a person), which has made the numbers go up over the past couple years.

> But like, what kind of preventative policing reduces homicides?

Misdemeanor arrests, searches, and foot patrols, etc. See my various other comments for more details and links.

> A better explanation is that underlying social safety nets have been ripped out from under people for the past couple of years

These effects predate the pandemic and correlate with the BLM protests in time and space (crime surges immediately after and in the vicinity of BLM protests). That said, I don’t doubt the pandemic contributed since 2020.

> Misdemeanor arrests, searches, and foot patrols, etc. See my various other comments for more details and links.

That doesn't track though. _Why_ would misdemeanor arrests result in less murders. I don't agree with Charles Fain Lehman's analysis in your post, and believe that while he thinks that because violent crime arrests when misdemeanors dropped that somehow proves that police aren't to blame I see the opposite in that data. As I argued above, that says to me that a drop in public acceptance of the role of police and the justice system leads to self directed dispute resolution, which more often turns violent. His gotcha that's supposed to be a nail in the coffin of this argument appears to me to actually be a point in favor of it.

> These effects predate the pandemic and correlate with the BLM protests in time and space (crime surges immediately after and in the vicinity of BLM protests). That said, I don’t doubt the pandemic contributed since 2020.

The idea that cities reaching a boiling point in distrust of the justice system, followed by no meaningful reform continue down the road of self directed and often violent dispute resolution is consistent with the model I've presented.

> Why_ would misdemeanor arrests result in less murders.

That's an unanswered question (crime is complicated), but there are probably many factors, not least of all that people get arrested for misdemeanors and then they're found with felony amounts of drugs or weapons and thus removed from the street.

> I don't agree with Charles Fain Lehman's analysis in your post

It's not his analysis, he's reporting on the findings of studies.

> while he thinks that because violent crime arrests when misdemeanors dropped that somehow proves that police aren't to blame I see the opposite in that data.

He doesn't profess that belief in the article.

> As I argued above, that says to me that a drop in public acceptance of the role of police and the justice system leads to self directed dispute resolution, which more often turns violent.

The article posits that as a factor as well (specifically that loss of trust in policing leads to less cooperation from the community).

> The idea that cities reaching a boiling point in distrust of the justice system, followed by no meaningful reform continue down the road of self directed and often violent dispute resolution is consistent with the model I've presented.

"Your" model also requires us to believe that the evidence of decreased proactive policing is merely a coincidence, which is hard for me to stomach. I don't doubt that the loss of trust contributed, but I only think this is the "fault" of policing as an institution to the extent that the activist and media narrative is accurate (which is to say, "not very").

> That's an unanswered question (crime is complicated), but there are probably many factors, not least of all that people get arrested for misdemeanors and then they're found with felony amounts of drugs or weapons and thus removed from the street.

Being in jail doesn't stop homicides. In fact they have more homicides than the general population.

> It's not his analysis, he's reporting on the findings of studies.

It's both. If you read the studies, while in the abstract they purport to establish a causal link, they don't back that up in their methodology. Lehman combines this into a greater analysis.

> He doesn't profess that belief in the article.

He professes a causal link between police _protests_ and increased homicides, finishing his article with "But it does give support to those who propose a relationship between 2020’s wave of anti-police protests and the ensuing homicide wave still sweeping the country—and to those who believe that continued hostility to the police will lead to more bloodshed."

> The article posits that as a factor as well (specifically that loss of trust in policing leads to less cooperation from the community).

While calling out protests specifically as being causal wrt to homicide rate.

> "Your" model also requires us to believe that the evidence of decreased proactive policing is merely a coincidence, which is hard for me to stomach. I don't doubt that the loss of trust contributed, but I only think this is the "fault" of policing as an institution to the extent that the activist and media narrative is accurate (which is to say, "not very").

No, police not doing the basics of their job while still overall increasing their budgets, and particularly arbitrarily and capriciously enforcing the law would be a major factor in loss of confidence in the justice system. I'm not saying that it's a coincidence; I'm saying that it's part of the model. If you can't rely on police to respond reported crime, then you start handling disputes person to person. Meanwhile with budgets continuing to increase _and_ police not doing their jobs, any semblance of social safety nets disappear. That's the point of "defund the police", noticing that they refuse to do the basics of their job, and in fact the goal of using them as a catchall for all sorts of social services failed, so put that portion of the budget back into more productive uses.

> How do police prevent homicides?

They don't, they clean up after the fact, and convict someone for ~50% of them. Unless it's one of their own that's responsible, then the entire country needs to riot for a week, before anyone even thinks of pressing charges.

It's so weird we talk about it like this, to say an entire swath of social research and theorists are "crazy," because they have the audacity to think a less-than-150-year state institution is maybe not perfect.

Like, do any research at all into the history of criminal justice, you will find we live in a very contingent situation now, one that has other options.

Like, do you all really think that police have been around forever? Do you really all think we would be violent state-of-nature monsters without them? That civilization is assured by them? Are we really so historically shortsighted that we see the existence of police as exactly corollary to law and order?

Can we imagine for a second that just because something is sufficient doesn't mean that it is necessary? Can we think about this rationally at all?

And then look at cost of the status quo... I don't know, its just so sad this is how we talk about it: the police (specifically, its unions/fraternities) truly have won the cultural battle. Doesn't even matter if there are some radicals out there, because the only way we can talk about these things means they will always win.

Call those people naive if you like, but "crazy" is just disheartening to hear for people who are mostly just angry and wanting it to stop.

I mean, it is nothing short of crazy to think that solutions that worked 150 years ago would work better than the system that has evolved along side our society now. It is also crazy to think that we should throw out something that mostly works in favor of something entirely different when the ramifications of the new thing not working are very very serious.

Also, you're throwing up a lot of extreme straw man arguments like that's what is being said.

> Like, do you all really think that police have been around forever?

I believe in dinosaurs, so no.

> Do you really all think we would be violent state-of-nature monsters without them?

No. I think more people would be without them than with them. Even if the difference between the two is 1%, that's a pretty serious change for the worse.

> That civilization is assured by them?

No, it's assured by faith in the system. Much like money. If everyone decided the law didn't matter there is very little the police force could do about that.

> Are we really so historically shortsighted that we see the existence of police as exactly corollary to law and order?

No. I certainly don't believe that. It's a component, but a small piece of the pie.

> Can we imagine for a second that just because something is sufficient doesn't mean that it is necessary?

Sure. Totally on board for that. It is sufficient to drive a monster truck to get where I want to go, but certainly not necessary. Not really a hard thing to imagine.

I can run counter to basically every argument you lay and still believe that a police force is necessary without there being any logical inconsistency in my beliefs...

> And then look at cost of the status quo

Look at the cost of social security. Look at the cost of public school. There is so much tangible and intangible value locked up on those institutions that if anyone said "we can do better" you'd be hesitant to throw them out whether or not you agreed.

> the police (specifically, its unions/fraternities) truly have won the cultural battle

it's not a culture battle. We're in an equilibrium, and people are rightfully hesitant to leave it behind for promises of utopian glory. It's fine to think there is a better way, and it's fine to test that out. Looking at the places running such tests, the 'better ways' so far proposed are far short of actually better.

> Call those people naive if you like

It's a good term for how I see it.

> but "crazy" is just disheartening to hear for people who are mostly just angry and wanting it to stop.

It's subjective. If I saw someone saw off their own foot, I'd call them crazy. If I see someone do something, or advocate doing something, that I think would be extremely damaging, I call that crazy. It's not crazy to want to do better, it's not crazy to be upset that things aren't getting better fast enough. Only another set of crazies are calling that crazy.

I think it's more than that. I've seen at multiple people on national television advocating for exactly that.

I'll concede that it's a small minority, though.

The problem is that it's a really stupid slogan. A natural, unbiased reading of it says something that 95% of the supporters don't mean. That's not the fault of the people interpreting it, it's the fault of those saying it.

Some of the protestors are/were openly anarchists, and eliminating police is central to what they want. There are certainly more than 3 anarchists around.

I should think that the number of people who want to completely do away with the police is vanishingly small. Actually, it's probably about 3 people.

Importantly, and I do think this is worth pointing out, those people have zero political power & zero input on any budgets, legislation, etc. Situations like those described in the article are actually happening.

It seems like the right in the USA are being deliberately pedantic about the phrase "defund the police", to make it sound like those on the left are crazy.

Conservatives have been gaslighting the electorate for as long as I've been a voter. This is no different.

So you're dismissing the defund the police movement based on the phrasing and not knowing anything about it? What would be so harmful with learning about the thing you're speaking about with authority before doing so...?

You had a lot of interesting pieces and then diluted the impact of your statement by tying in "defunding the police" which is an overly fraught almost meaningless phrase at this point since it means almost something completely different to every person who hears it - which loses all its value.

I think most reasonable people can agree with your previous points that this is in fact a corrupted system. That was where you had the most power of your comment.

>> "The names of the officers were not listed on the tickets in secretive Brookside."

I mean, don't we have a right to face our accuser in court? Can't do that if their name is not on the ticket.

No, abolishing the police means getting rid of the police. You don’t get to redefine words with this sort of Doublespeak.

You wanted to capitalize on the thrill of saying something as bold as “Abolish the police” and then backpedal when it became convenient to take a more reasonable approach. It’s dishonest and it’s becoming a pattern after “Black Lives Matter” was called out for being similarly problematic. This isn’t limited to the left either. “Read my lips: no new taxes”, “Lock her up”, and “Build the wall” were likewise dishonest.

I have just the slogan for you: "No Political Slogans!"

They might not get to “redefine words” but neither do you get to just change them to fit your point. The slogan used “defund” not ‘abolish”. “Defund” is somewhat ambiguous, indeed. That the initial slogan with “abolish” didn’t catch on actually helps to show that abolishment was not the intended meaning.

The parent poster used "abolish" which is why I used it. Also, that's the phrase I've most seen in the media. I respect that you may have seen "defund" used more frequently.

"Defund" isn't exactly ambiguous either. If you defund a police department, you've abolished it because police officers aren't going to work for free and the police buildings and vehicles will deteriorate from not being maintained. It is not possible to have a police force without funding.

It's like if I said "we should fire bullets at JimBob", and then after that happened acting surprised that JimBob died. "Whoa whoa whoa I just said to fire bullets at him, not kill him!" really shouldn't be fooling anyone.

HW absolutely meant "No new taxes" when he said it. That doesn't make it dishonest, but it does illustrate why boxing yourself into dogmatic ideological stances is a bad move from a policy standpoint.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com