Defund the Police?

[labnoti]

I posted this topic in another forum where it was deleted before I saw any response. If it stirred up something, I didn't see it, and I'm not trying to repeat that here, but to get honest feedback.

Activism proposing the defunding of police is beginning to be covered by the media and gaining more widespread attention. I am not claiming how widespread the support for this idea is, but the discussion on it is increasing. Today, the city council members of Minneapolis announced a "veto-proof" resolution to defund and dissolve the police department. Activists have painted a "Defund the Police" mural in Washington DC.

Can defunding or abolishing police further the cause of gun rights and firearms-related individual liberties?

I can't help but suspect I'll face backlash for even mentioning the idea because I get the impression that the "gun community" is homogeneously "pro-police." Let me be clear that I'm not proposing a sentiment of "cop-hating." It seems ironic to me that because individual gun ownership and the exercise of gun-rights is inherently anti-statist, a libertarian ideology permeates the community of gun-culture people, and yet their support for the institutions of the police state seem to be unrelenting.

State institutions of police are a modern concept and one that came about against substantial resistance. First created by King Louis XIV in 1667, the Paris police force endured the French Revolution and persisted under Napoleon into the 19th century. Around that time is when the British began experimenting with the Thames River Police, primarily to protect property (cargo) on the docks from theft. As the city grew from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the Metropolitan Police Service was established on September 29, 1829 in London as the first modern and professional police force in the world. There was much opposition to the spread of this concept, both as an undesirable foreign import and as an over-reach of big-Statism into the affairs of citizens. The police have, ever since then, been the enforcement arm of the big State. It was the "Gestapo" after all that the citizens of Germany would come to fear when their nation was taken over by a tyrant.

Why is it that gun-owners are quick to point out the impotency of the police in providing for their security when justifying their gun-ownership, while the liberals seem to be hell-bent on depending on the police and the state for everything? And yet the supporters of gun rights seem to promote the power of police institutions, while it is the liberals that appear to be taking the lead in calling for them to be abolished? The liberals so doing undoubtedly do not envision a smaller government, but simply hope to take funds for the police-state and divert them to welfare-statism.

We understand that the police don't "make the laws," they just "enforce them." Because of this, most gun-rights activism has focused on State and Federal legislatures and on elections of governors and presidents. But it has not been lost on gun-rights advocates that whatever laws and orders those parts of the government make, it is ultimately the police and Sheriffs that enforce them. Because of this, we've seen support for "sanctuary" cities and counties where laws and orders of the state that deny citizens their rights and liberties will not be enforced by the police or Sheriff. Indeed if there were no police, who would fear being arrested for carrying a concealed weapon without a permission slip?

Now I know some people just can't imagine anything but anarchy without the police -- as if civilization itself wasn't possible until the big police state came upon us. Let me be clear that I am not discussing a state of lawlessness or anarchy. We know that there is less freedom and there is no liberty in a state of lawlessness where the most basic property rights and the security of one's life and the live's of one's family must be constantly guarded. In the streets of our cities today we see this scenario, carried out through looting and rioting, pitted against the big militarized police state in riot gear. Are those two extremes really the only options?

Are police institutions really the only thing that keep our society together and from falling into hopeless anarchy and chaos? If the institutions of policing were substantially weakened or many of them dissolved, would our civilization turn into some crime-infested dystopia riddled with vigilantism? Or would people enjoy more liberty, free from the oppression of the big state's enforcers?

The institutions of the police state are likely to be defunded even without an ideological shift. Tax revenues have gone off a cliff. Will libertarian-minded gun rights advocates and 2A supporters hope for a Federal bailout of the police through even greater deficit-spending and debt-monetization? Or will the defunding of the police be embraced as a fiscal necessity or even a welcome curtailment of state power?

How will the defunding of the police affect you personally? Will you feel less secure? Will you take concrete actions out of concern that a crime wave or destructive anarchy will touch you personally? Or will you feel relieved of some concern about state and police abuse of power and the runaway growth of executive power and the expansion of bureaucracy?

[zxcvbob]

If they dissolve the PD, there will still be the Sheriff's Office. Vigilantism will be better than what they have now in some wards of the city.

Cut their funding but don't eliminate the PD, in fact they should probably raise officer salaries; take away most of their tactical toys and cut the number of officers instead. And they need to break the police union; might can use RICO to do that. And do away with qualified immunity (that's probably not within the council's authority.) Qualified immunity is theoretically a good thing, but like most good things if you abuse them they should be taken away.

[Thomas Clarke]

Local Law Enforcement is stretched in many directions at the direction of their Political Leadership. That direction is unlikely to change in the near future. Law Enforcement is challenged to perform duties that are not within their traditional roles. Additionally hiring is preferentially directed to favor candidates with military service. Collectively these do yield the best in community policing. Far better to place available funding to the specialty areas where Law Enforcement is effective.

[JohnKSa]

Closed for staff discussion.

[Aguila Blanca]

We closed this thread while we discussed whether or not it's more politics than it is Law & Civil Rights. The decision of staff was not unanimous, but favored opening it for further discussion.

Please note: the discussion will be monitored. If it devolves into politics, it will be closed permanently.

[Doyle]

I'll offer my two cents. I'm definitely not for doing away with active policing. However, there is merit to shifting some of the jobs that police are doing into non-police groups. Sometimes, dealing with non-violent drug usage and mental health issues requires a softer touch than police are trained to provide.

[stinkeypete]

Defunding doesn’t mean eliminating. Here are some things to consider as many straws break a camel’s back.

Some cops are expected to do animal control as cost savings cut the animal control officers.

When someone is causing a disturbance the cops are called. Maybe a mental health professional would be more appropriate. Maybe someone like an EMT trained in substance abuse. Maybe a councilor. Heck, they called a priest when James Cagney was holed up in a tall building...

Maybe putting money in to prevention is more efficient than military style control. Social workers, drug treatment.

Maybe some of our own policies helped create unintended consequences- crack down hard on pot, make it very profitable for criminals, criminals protect profits with military level hardware, cops escalate... maybe it would be better to decriminalize pot and fund program to reduce demand for hard drugs so the profit in importing them dries up.

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There are a lot of unarmed cops in other countries and it’s okay to wait for armed response many times if things don’t escalate. And sometimes you need the swat team. Not always.

People are starting to blame Unions. The Union protects cops, as they should. Someone needs to stand up and say “YOU” put our members in this circumstance, YOU asked the impossible, didn’t fund society properly, are looking for a scape goat and the blame should go right up the ladder all the way to the top.

That said, a man was outright murdered on the street and I won’t dilute the impact of it.

[dyl]

I usually don't hang out in this section of the forum. I recognize that defunding doesn't mean abolishing necessarily. But I would think placing additional pressure on police forces (fewer officers being stretched thinner) would mean decreased performance in high pressure situations, or less clear cut circumstances. More mistakes regardless of the ethnic group of the person being detained is not good. Perhaps some fat can be trimmed, not sure how inefficiency was related to recent events, so it seems like defunding was supposed to be punitive, but having zero municipal police might end up punishing the local population. Maybe folks will end up carrying their own handcuffs if they have to wait for the Sheriff's Department for everything (which cuffing maybe illegal for regular folks...for now).

[Mike38]

Maybe "Defunding" will lead to what Law Enforcement once was very good at, an old fashioned, well dressed, well mannered, clean cut Policeman. Walking the beat, meeting the people, smiling and waving at the shoppers on Main Street. The Policeman knew the people by name, and the people knew the Policeman by name.

Somehow, for some reason, Law Enforcement has been Militarized. They now wear black Battel Dress Uniforms. Ski masks. Utility belts with 7 to 10 loaded magazines. Tattoos that "show". Beards. They no longer look like the person you go to for help, they look like the enemy in a war zone. They act like the enemy in a war zone.

I live in a low populated county in north central Illinois. I am 60 years old, and have lived in this county 58 of those 60 years. I remember well the days when a policeman walked Main Street of the county seat. He would stop and talk to people. Peek into a store front and yell howdy. Stop at the Dairy Queen and have an ice cream cone while sitting at a picnic table full of kids.

You don't see that any longer. Cops sit in their squad car, engine running 24/7. Parking in the shadows, radio microphone in one hand, radar gun in the other. Generating revenue to cover their pay checks and the squad car that needs replaced once a year because of the hours on the engine has worn it out.

Maybe, just maybe, we could swing back to the time when a Cop was your friend. Children knew if they needed help, or were scared, they could seek out a Cop, and not fear a Cop. Maybe.

Then again, the people have to change also. And to get the people to change, may be an impossible task.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Edit: I want to clarify. Maybe Cops in the big cities need to wear BDUs and carry 100 rounds of ammo. But they don't in my area, they don't in small town USA, yet they do.

[Colorado Redneck]

I think defunding police departments is over reaction. There are bad people in every walk of life. My daughter was chief of staff for the mayor of a large city. The police had multiple incidents of absolute stone cold police brutality. The bad cops were getting a talking to and light slap on the wrist. The union was preventing the chief, the chief of staff and the mayor from taking any punitive steps to correct the problem children. Eventually there was enough public pressure that there were lateral moves, terminations, and disciplinary measures that the problems were diminished.

The good old days are gone. In my city, there are meth dealers, gangs, violent crime, domestic violence, which many times requires trained law enforcement people to take care of. Traffic tickets are necessary to keep drivers from turning city streets into autobahns.

The law enforcement departments probably can evolve and adapt. Certainly, cops that have a history of violating citizens rights need to be eliminated from the community. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[44 AMP]

It seems ironic to me that because individual gun ownership and the exercise of gun-rights is inherently anti-statist, a libertarian ideology permeates the community of gun-culture people, and yet their support for the institutions of the police state seem to be unrelenting.

I think you are incorrect here, specifically in characterizing gun-culture people as supporting a police state.

Supporting the police, and the basic concept of law and order, is NOT, I repeat, NOT supporting a police state.

I will not dispute that in some places, at some times, certain political factions have used the police under their control to enforce their personal and political will, but those are situations we deplore, and seek to prevent to the greatest extent possible.

The police have, ever since then, been the enforcement arm of the big State. It was the "Gestapo" after all that the citizens of Germany would come to fear when their nation was taken over by a tyrant.

Here, you are lumping all police together with the political police that make up the enforcement arm of the police state. There is a difference. German citizens came to fear the Gestapo (the Secret State Police) because of what they were allowed to do. These are not the Polizei, the "regular" police, the guys who direct traffic, investigate crimes such as rape, robbery, and murder.
Do not confuse people enforcing ordinary laws with people enforcing the will of their political masters just because both have the word "Police" in their names.

And yet the supporters of gun rights seem to promote the power of police institutions, while it is the liberals that appear to be taking the lead in calling for them to be abolished?

We support the police that act within Constitutional and other established legal boundaries. We do not support the police who act outside those limits, be they rogue individuals, or under orders from a ruling authority acting outside its proper bounds. We don't call for abolishment of ALL police because of some bad actors. We do recognize that there are bad cops and bad administrations, but we also understand that while abolishing the police would get rid of them, it would also get rid of the good and necessary things the police do, day in and day out.

So, yes, when faced with an extreme (and we believe incorrect) alternative, such as disbanding the police, we SEEM to support the bad cops along with the good. This is an illusion created and strengthened by focus only on extreme absolutes.

We must avoid the mistake of tunnel vision about these matters. There are many, many factors over the past 60 some years that have had influence and effect, some much greater than others. We can discuss them, provided we remain civil and within the strict rules of this forum.

I believe ONE of the factors that brought us to where we are today has been the militarization of the police, brought about at first by the "War on Drugs".

Among other important changes, this has encouraged the "us vs them" attitude of both sides. Also, don't discount the "training film" effect of cop shows, both TV and movies.

We have gone from the small town cop being "officer friendly" to being taught (24/7) that if you talk to the cops, the best you'll get is screwed, and often physically assaulted, even arrested, IF you don't get killed.

The spiral has been going on for some time, and its worst in large cities. The cops are seen as oppressors (even when they aren't), people resist, the cops get more "oppressive" and so on.

Then there is the effect of the criminal underclass, gangs and individuals, again something largely empowered by various Govt decisions and policies. (war on drugs..revolving door justice, etc.)

[44 AMP]

The police had multiple incidents of absolute stone cold police brutality. The bad cops were getting a talking to and light slap on the wrist. The union was preventing the chief, the chief of staff and the mayor from taking any punitive steps to correct the problem children.

I think its important to remind people that the "problem children" being protected is an ADMINISTRATIVE problem, and that the union can only "protect" its members to the limits of the contract.

If the mayor or his staff is prevented from punishing the bad actors, BY CONTRACT, that's not the fault of the union. If you need to point fingers, the first stop would be the civil authority that entered into a binding contract that prevents them from properly "policing" the police they command.

Blaming all police, everywhere for incompetent administration in some places isn't fair, either.

[BJung]

I think that wherever you see the police departments defunded and its role changed, things will get worse just like our school system. Where should I start? For the schools, graduating students that can't read? Parents who send their children to private schools to avoid the trouble kids. Without the police, travel without fear of being robbed or assaulted will be less unless enough people carry guns to shoot perpetrators as a deterrent. The fair exchange of commerce will be less because theft will increase. I drove by a CVS in SF once and saw two large garden size trash bags full of torn up packaging from stolen goods. Imagine what the loss is. Afterwards, a law was passed allowing theft under a certain amount. I forget the details. But, I talked to employees at two stores and they said theft went up. Eliminating police will not lessen problems but increase it, just like letting the class clown run the classroom.

[Hal]

I PM'd John & pleaded w/him to reopen this thread.
Thank you - to the ones that did & note taken & my promise not to even approach the line here, let alone cross it.

I literally - have no clue what this means - defunding the police.
I'm also - not really sure where exactly my sympathies on this idea lie.

[Don P]

My opinion is give the twin cities what they are asking for. Sit back and watch what may unfold with lack of law enforcement. Then wait and see how the city council replies to what ever takes place and how they choose to move forward.

[TomNJVA]

44 AMP, without quoting specifics, everything in your two post above are insightful, well stated, and spot on!

[stinkeypete]

This thread is encouraging to me in that people with differing political and philosophical foundation can have a respectful discussion about a controversial topic... disagreeing or agreeing, expressing or absorbing, and still remain cordial.

It’s a credit to the members and moderators.

[Nathan]

Just remember how this all happened. Somebody showed us cocaine and it was great! It needed to be in all the cool spots, Miami, New York, LA, Chicago, etc. Then somebody missed a delivery or a bunch. Then came the TEC-9’s....sooo bad! And the shootings, more bad...then crack cocaine. Well, at those prices, I guess all drugs are bad, so we needed the drug war. It failed. More deaths. The we needed the assault weapons ban. It would fail and sunset, so we needed community policing....to get 100000 new cops on the beat, we needed to drop the training requirements. So we trained them to make police contact. Many police love contact, chasing, cuffing and stuffing....you know a good beat down. Sometimes they had to chase you down to make contact and sometimes it killed you, but hey it was all for the children, so many do good’ers looked the other way. Turns out the police were reinstating themselves after some of these wrong doings...

So, yea....some folks are mad. We have given up our gun rights 3+ times to help Chicago get control and they failed every time, but we still have our tax stamps, serialization, old gun rule, lack of gun transportation protections.

So, yea, reducing police funding, while paying remaining cops more, breaking the Union, expanding gun rights and holding people accountable for actions is what we need. It would probably be good to have fewer leaders in these troubled communities and a few more do’ers, but what do I know.

Yes there is some satire in this post....filter it out, if you got offended.

[Sharkbite]

I may be jaded. As a professional trainer in use of force issues for the past 2+decades, i see things through that lens.

I saw a TRAINING failure in the George Floyd incident.

The officer kneeling on his neck/shoulder was trying to hold him down. That much is clear. What led up to that is not so clear. Ive seen a vid of Floyd cuffed and being walked on the sidewalk. The next vid shows Floyd face down and the Officer kneeling on him. Something happened between those two vids. We just dont know what.

I make no excuses for the death, but i saw an Officer that didnt have a good understanding or skillset in ground control tactics doing what he felt he needed to do to hold Floyd down.

A simple figure 4 leg entanglement would have allowed ONE officer to hold a CUFFED subject down, under control, without ANY pressure being applied to the neck or chest.

Now to the point of this thread...
I dont see how defunding or reducing funding to any Agency gets any of those officers any MORE training.

An Officer needs to be calm and “in control” while dealing with a resisting subject. Nobody will be calm without the confidence of solid skills. Most Agencies give their officers about 8 hours of empty hand training (Arrest and control techniques) per YEAR. There is no way to be competent in those timeframes. I put in about 8 hours a WEEK on the mat (pre-Covid) and im not an active Deputy anymore

So, we see Officers overreact and use excessive force out of fear. We see Officers use higher levels of force then are needed out of lack of confidence in skills of lower force levels. “ im not good with empty hands, so i’ll use my Baton/TASER/OCspray”, instead of just using some soft hand technique. “Im not confident i can control this guy, im going to have to shoot him”.

Now, this death was tragic and there really is no good excuse why it happened. But, reducing the funding will NOT create a better LEO. Just the opposite.

[thallub]

Police departments became militarized to fight the "war on drugs": SWAT teams, flash bangs, no knock warrants served at night, armored vehicles and cops with attitudes; suited up in combat gear came into vogue.

After spending trillions of dollars and incarcerating millions of people the "war on drugs" is an abject failure. US citizens have an insatiable appetite for all things dope. Others are willing to fill that need. More dope is coming into the US than ever before. The belief that we can somehow save folks from themselves is absurd.

Don't defund the police departments. Bust the police unions and defund the "war on drugs".

BTW: Just before retiring from the US Army in 1979 a sergeant major friend wrote a recommendation for a young soldier who wanted to be a cop in Florida. Fast forward four or five years: SGM received a call from a police chief in Florida. They had hired the young man as recommended. He had been arrested along with several other cops for ripping off dope dealers and murder.

[Onward Allusion]

I am a gun owner and I absolutely do not support our police departments in its current form. I question the logic of have local law enforcement being transferred military weapons and equipment control a civilian populous. I question the lack of training of our LEOs. Time and time again we see this repeated. I'm not even going to bring up individual incidents.

Going back to how defunding the police could impact gun owners... Rather than relying on the police to "protect" maybe folks should be responsible for their own welfare most of the time. Keep in mind that defunding doesn't equate elimination. It means reallocating funds to other community safety programs.

[zoo]

Their pay checks have gotten outrageous, their egos ridiculous, and their respect for the law minimal.

Time to clean house.

[JohnKSa]

Now to the point of this thread...
I dont see how defunding or reducing funding to any Agency gets any of those officers any MORE training.
...

Now, this death was tragic and there really is no good excuse why it happened. But, reducing the funding will NOT create a better LEO. Just the opposite.

Sad, isn't it.

I just hope that if something foolish is done, it is done at the local level, and not to the whole country. If a particular city or county, or even state wants to do something foolish, that's one thing. It's another thing if the feds get involved and change things for the whole country all at once.

I'm not saying that it's a given something foolish will be done. It's possible that constructive changes could be made--you've pointed out one option.

[HiBC]

Crazy times.

I'm going to borrow some ideas from other disciplines. Other models.
Suppose there is a family with a troubled kid.His behavior has lead either to the parent(s) reaching out for help with the unmanageable kid,or teachers,etc have requested some intervention.
There is no doubt this kid needs help. What is critical is to realize this kid,the "Identified patient" fits into,and is a component of,a whole family system.
A family system that probably has secrets and likely a parent(s) that are the center of the whole dysfunctional mess.
The whole family is sick,but only this kid is identified as troubled. This family will protect the addict or alcoholic or whatever...parent with secrets.
They just want Johnnie to stop cutting himself.

I'm thinking the police departments do have their problems,but they are the identified patients.

Somebody made the decision Chauvin was training officer for the rookies that are accessories. Who made that decision?

Police Departments,police chiefs,etc are managed funded,and ladministered by politics,poiticians,and probably newspapers.

I'm going to break off describing the politics there,in deference to the mods

Back in the 1980's,1990's, J Edwards Deming was in the heyday of the Quality movement.I read his book "Out of the Crisis". There is a lot in that book that would be useful now.
One of them is this. If a process or organization has a point of chaos...problems...like this police department and Chauvin.you look upstream for the root cause of the problem.

Well,as you look upstream in a political hierarchy.you will notice a lot of arse covering and throwing people under the bus.

The Police Chief is responsible for everything he does or fails to do. He owns Chauvin.

But a Mayor,or City Council,or a Commisioner owns him. They hired him,they make policies,and the Chief serves at their pleasure.

Chaos and crisis creates a "fog of war" which covers crookrd,corrupt,or incompetent people.

No doubt,the PD needs overhaul.

But its entirely possible the "Systemic problem" runs through a whole network of a State level "Deep State"

IMO,eliminating the PD or defunding it makes no sense.

You might need to fire 70% of the force,unionbe damned,and rebuild it,without cliques,etc.

And a cler light needs to be shined on the rest of Government. ts the voter who must help fix this.

Remember Hill Street Blues? Farillo was a good guy. But the Mayor? The Commissioner?

Then there is the media,youtube,etc pumping the propaganda about evil cops.

No,I don't have the answer.

But we won't get close to the questions without the discussion being political

IMO.

I do,however,accept and understand the Mods position

[doofus47]

Police aren't perfect individuals; societies are never perfect because no human being is perfect.
Police can be reformed if they are correctly regulated. Societies can be reformed if they wish those changes to take place.

Removing the police seems a bit short sighted. In the transcript of the Chicago alderman calling to the Mayor of Chicago when they were undergoing the worst of their riots, there seemed to be gangs stepping up to protect their areas of town against anyone who they didn't recognize. Self-defense of the group seems a natural human instinct. People confronting anyone who doesn't appear "local" doesn't seem to be an improvement over a trained police force. What would be the purpose of local governance if there is no safety? To plug pot holes? Why would we stay here if it were dangerous?

I"m for reform not revocation.